Jawaharlal Nehru’s Speeches Vol. 2

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES
VOLUME TWO

August 1949 — February 1953

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S
SPEECHES

VOLUME TWO

PUBLICATIONS DIVISION

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

First Published [ January 1954
Second Impression , June 1957 (Asadha 1879)
Third Impression, October 1963 (Ashwin 1885)
Fourth Impression, June 1967 (. Jyaistha 1889)

PRINTED IN INDIA BY THE MANAGER, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PRESS
COIMBATORE, AND PUBLISHED BY THE DIRECTOR, PUBLICATIONS DIVISION

DELHI-6

PREFACE

This is the second of a consecutive series of four volumes,
and contains a selection of the more significant of the Prime
Minister’s speeches and writings and covers the period
between August 1949 and February 1953. In the first volume,
the stress was on the gigantic movement that led to political
freedom, on the sufferings and struggle that went with it and
on the more immediate implications of its final achievement.
Here, the emphasis shifts, so to speak, from the revolutionary
aspect of India’s fight for freedom to the constructive, from
a sense of achievement to a growing realization that the
journey has hardly begun. This shift was inevitable, for
Jawaharlal Nehru mirrors in himself the deepest urges of the
Indian people and Asia’s renascence finds an echo in his
voice. By the year 1949 a wounded but dynamic India had
emerged from the chaos of Partition, determined to regain
her nationhood. Hardly had she done so when a host of
national and international problems arose which demanded
solution against the background of a world gripped by fear
and suspicion. “We live in a haunted age, surrounded by
ghosts and apparitions, ideas, passions, hatred, violence,
preparations for war...”, says Nehru, and he makes it
abundantly clear that no solution that does not seek to solve
the larger problem of world peace can endure.

As the main architect of New India, Jawaharlal Nehru
is deeply aware of the fact that freedom is not a triumph but
an opportunity. He has no formula, no gospel; he does not
hear voices nor does he consider himself to be the agent of
India’s destiny. And, if he sometimes appears to be groping
for a way, it is fitting indeed for the chief spokesman of the
aspirations of a country groping for way.

These pages reveal not only a statesman and patriot of
rare quality and insight but also a man for whom life never
loses its beauty and wonder. The two letters to India’s
children disclose what is the most lovable, perhaps the basic
quality of this unique personality. There is, however, no need
to dwell on the personal factor, for the speeches included in
this volume are extempore and speak for themselves.

vi

PREFACE

Besides speeches, this collection also contains messages,
broadcasts, articles and a foreword. All these have been
grouped according to subject matter and the speeches in each
section arranged chronologically.

All the speeches were delivered in English, except ‘Two
years of Independence’, ‘The New Role of Kliadi* and 'The
Dignity of Labour’, which have been translated from the
original Hindi.

CONTENTS

Paob

INDIA BECOMES A REPUBLIC

TWO YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE
Translated from speech in Hindi delivered at the Red Fort, Delhi,

August 15, 1949 1

A HISTORIC DAY 7

Message to the Nation, January 26, 1950

REFUGEE AND OTHER PROBLEMS . . 8

Speech in Parliament, New Delhi, November 15, 1950

THE GENERAL ELECTIONS .. 11

Speech broadcast from All India Radio, Delhi, November 22, i951

LOOKING BACK . . 16

Speech in Parliament, New Delhi, May 22, 1952

LINGUISTIC STATES . . 33

Speech in Parliament, New Delhi, July 7, 1952

ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AND PLANNING

THE MIDDLE WAY . . 44

Address at the annual meeting of the Indian Chemical Manufacturers’
Association, New Delhi, December 26, 1950

COMMUNITY PROJECTS .. 50

Speech at the Community Projects Conference, New Delhi, May 7, 1952

HOPEFUL PROSPECTS . . 57

Broadcast from All India Radio, Delhi, June 14, 1952

THE DIGNITY OF LABOUR . . 62

Translated from speech in Hindi at the inauguration of the Harijan
Convention, Wardha, November 1, 1952

THE IMAGINATIVE APPROACH . . 65

Speech at the Silver Jubilee celebrations of the Central Board of Irriga-
tion and Power, New Delhi, November 17, 1952

NO CHANGE IN FOOD POLICY . . 74

Speech in Parliament, New Delhi, November 18, 1952

ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY . . 80

Speech in Parliament, New Delhi, December 15, 1952

LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS . . 92

Broadcast from All India Radio, Delhi, December 31, 1952

THE NEW ROLE OF KHADI . . 96

Translated from speech in' Hindi at the inauguration of the Khadi and
Village Industries Board, New Delhi, February 2, 1953

viii

CONTENTS

Page

ON KASHMIR

LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE . . 100

Speech in the House of the People, New Delhi, August 7, 1952

OUR PLEDGE TO KASHMIR . . 109

Speech in the House of the People, New Delhi, August 7, 1952

INDIA AND PAKISTAN

WE CANNOT BE ENEMIES FOR EVER . . 124

Reply to debate on the President’s Address in Parliament, New Delhi,
February 3, 1950

A PLEA FOR BALANCE . . 135

Statement to the Press, New Delhi, February 10, 1950

THE BENGAL ISSUE . . 136

Statement in Parliament, New Delhi, February 23, 1950

MEETING THE CRISIS . . 146

Reply to debate on the budget demand for the Ministry of External
Affairs in Parliament, New Delhi, March 17, 1950

THE RIGHT APPROACH . . 150

Speech in Parliament on the Motion :

‘‘That the Bengal situation with reference to the Agreement between
the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan signed on April 8, 1950, be
taken into consideration”, New Delhi, August 7, 1950

THE ATMOSPHERE OF SECURITY . . 162

Reply to debate on the Bengal situation in Parliament, New Delhi,

August 9, 1950

NO- WAR DECLARATION . . 177

Speech in Parliament, New Delhi, November 28, 1950

INDIA IS OPPOSED TO WAR . . 181

Reply to debate on the President’s Address in Parliament, New Delhi,

August 11, 1951

INDIA AND THE WORLD

A VOYAGE OF DISCOVERY . . 196

Speech in the House of Representatives and the Senate, Washington D.C.,
October 13, 1949

FRIENDLY CO-OPERATION . . 201

Address to the East and West Association, the Foreign Policy Association,
the India League of America and the Institute of Pacific Relations,

New York, October 19, 1949

ASIA IS RENASCENT . . 214

Speech delivered in the Canadian Parliament, Ottawa, October 24, 1949

OUR POLICY IS POSITIVE . . 220

Speech while presenting the budget demand for the Ministry of External
Affairs in Parliament, New Delhi, March 17, 1950

CONTENTS

IX

Pagb

A PROBLEM FOR THE UNITED NATIONS 237

Message broadcast by the United Nations Radio network from Lake
Success, New York, May 5, 1950

FERMENT IN ASIA . . 238

Speech at the eleventh session of the Institute of Pacific Relations,
Lucknow, October 3, 1950

PEACE OR WAR 246

Speech initiating debate on Foreign Affairs in Parliament, New Delhi,
December 6, 1950

THE GROWTH OF VIOLENCE . 259

Speech in reply to debate nn Foreign AfFairs in Parliament, New Delhi,
December 7, 1950

THE TEMPER OF PEACE . 273

Broadcast from BBC, London, January 12, 1951

A GREAT CHALLENGE 277

Broadcast from All India Radio, Delhi, January 24, l c 51

Wi WILL NOT COMPROMISE . . 282

Speech during debate on Foreign Affairs in Parliament, New Delhi,

March 28, 1951

WE DECIDE FOR OURSELVES . . 296

Reply to debate on the President's Address m Parliament, New Delhi,
February 12, 1952

THE LARGER SCHEME Or THINGS . . 305

Speech in reply to debate on Foreign Affairs m Parliament, New Delhi,

June 12, 1952

DEFINING FOREIGN POLICY . . 320

Speech during debate on the President's Address in Parliament,

New Delhi, February 16, 1953

THE PSYCHOSIS OF FEAR . . 330

Speech m Parliament, New Delhi, February 18, 1953

ON SCIENCE AND CULTURE

WHAT IS CULTURE* . . 356

Speech at the inauguration of the Indian Council for Cultural
Relations, New Delhi, Apnl 9, 1950

THE SPIRIT OF SCIENCE . . 362

Speech at the opening ceremony of the Fuel Research Institute,
Digwadih, Apnl 22, 1950

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Inaugural address at the Indian Science Congress, Bangalore, January 2,

THE CRISIS OF MAN

Addrosat the UNESCO Indian National Commission, New Delhi,
March 24, 1951

368

X

CONTENTS

Page

ON MUSEUMS . . 375

Speech at the Centenary celebration of the Madras Government Museum
and the opening of the National Art Gallery, Madras, November 27, 1951

THE CONCEPT OF MAN . . 379

Address at the UNESCO symposium, New Delhi, December 20, 1951

PAST AND PRESENT . . 386

Speech at the inauguration of the National Art Treasures Fund,

New Delhi, February 23, 1952

THE WAY TO SPIRITUAL REVIVAL . . 390

Message to the International Buddhist Cultural Conference, Sanchi,
November 29, 1952

TO THE UNIVERSITIES

ENDS AND MEANS . . 391

Address on the occasion of the conferment of the degree of Doctor of Laws
at Columbia University, New York, October 17, 1949

THE GANDHIAN TECHNIQUE . . 398

Address at the University of Chicago, October 27, 1949

THE AGE OF CRISIS . . 414

Address at the University of California, October 31, 1949

BASIC WISDOM .. 421

Convocation Address at the University of Ceylon, Colombo, January 12,

1950

DYNAMIC LIFE . . 429

Address at the University of Saugor, October 30, 1952

TO CHILDREN

THIS BEAUTIFUL WORLD OF OURS . . 435

For the Children’s Number of Shankar's Weekly, New Delhi,
December 3, 1949

CHILDREN OF THE WORLD . . 438

For the Children’s Number of Shankar's Weekly, New Delhi,
December 26, 1950

ON THE PRESS

THE PRESS AND INDO-PAKISTAN DIFFERENCES . . 441

Address at the joint session of the Pakistan and Indian Newspaper Editors’
Conference, New Delhi, May 4, 1950

FREEDOM AND LICENCE . . 453

Speech at the All-India Newspaper Editors’ Conference, New Delhi.
December 3, 1950

THE MODERN NEWSPAPER . . 462

Speech at the All-India Newspaper Editors’ Conference, New Delhi.
September 17, 1952

CONTENTS

xi

Page

CONCERNING THE CONSTITUTION

COMPENSATION FOR COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF
PROPERTY 472

Speech while moving an amendment to Article 24 of the Draft Constitution
in the Constituent Assembly, New Delhi, September 10, 1949

THE STATIC ELEMENT . . 479

Speech in Parliament while moving that the Bill to amend the Constitution
of India be referred to a Select Committee, New Delhi, May 16, 1951

INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL FREEDOM . . 497

Reply to debate in Parliament on the reference to a Select Committee of
the Bill to amend the Constitution of India, New Delhi, May 18, 1951

EQUALITY AND THE BACKWARD CLASSES .. 511

Speech in Parliament while moving the Resolution “That tiie b ii to amend
the Constitution of India, as reported by the Select Commit! “e. be taken
into consideration”, New Delhi, May 29, 1951

MISCELLANEOUS

TO OUR SERVICES . . 532

Broadcast from All India Radio, Delhi, December 7, 1949

THE MODERN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE . . 536

Inaugural address at the Health Ministers’ Conference, New Delhi,

August 31, 1950

THE BUILDER OF NEW INDIA . . 545

Statement in Parliament, New Delhi, December 15, 1950

A HALF CENTURY ENDS . . 547

Broadcast from All India Radio, Delhi, December 31, 1950

THE IMPORTANCE OF TOMORROW . . 552

Speech in Parliament, New Delhi, March 14, 1951

CO-OPERATION AMONG PEOPLE . . 562

Speech at the twenty-fourth annual session of the Federation of Indian
Chambers of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi, March 31, 1951

A RADIANT FIGURE .. 571

Foreword to D. G. Tendulkar’s Mahatma , Pahalgam, K ashmir ,
June 30, 1951

THE TRIBAL FOLK

Speech at the opening session of the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled
Areas Conference, New Delhi, June 7, 1952

THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION BILL
Speech in Parliament, New Delhi, August 2, 1952

583

INDIA BECOMES A REPUBLIC

TWO YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE

C ince I first unfurled the National Flag on the Red Fort,
two years have been added to India’s long history which
began thousands of years ago. During these two years, we
have seen achievements and failures, we have experienced
joy and sorrow. The good work we have done will remain
even though we pass away. So will India, though generations
come and go.

Great questions face us and our task will not be over till
we have answered them. Our objective is to make it possible
for the millions of India to lead contented and purposeful
lives. We cannot do that till we have solved, to a large extent,
the problems that face us.

On a day like this we should try to detach ourselves from
the problems of the moment and see from a distance, as it
were, what is happening in our country and in the world. It
is right that we forget our little troubles for a while and think
of the major currents that are flowing in our country.

Thirty years ago there appeared on the Indian scene a
mighty man of destiny who lighted our path. That light
illumined our minds and hearts and large numbers of our
people, forgetting their own troubles and domestic difficulties,
their property and family, responded to his call. It was not
for personal gain of any kind. Among these there existed a
friendly competition as to who could serve the motherland
better and more effectively. Our consuming obsession was the
liberation of our country.

The star of a free India beckoned us forward. We
dreamed of freedom from poverty and distress. We gained
our political freedom at last but the other freedom still
remains for us to achieve. Before we could do much to achieve

Translated fiom speech in Hindi delis cred at the Red Fort Delhi, August 15,
1949

2

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

it, new problems came in our way. Sixty lakhs of people
migrated to India as refugees. We faced this problem as we
had faced others. I suppose we made some mistakes but no
one reviewing these two years will fail to appreciate our
forward march in the face of all kinds of difficulties.

Unarmed and peaceful, we faced a proud empire, not
looking for aid to any other country and relying only on
ourselves. We had faith in our leader, our country and in
ourselves. This gave us the strength that sustained us during
our struggle for independence. If we had faith and self-
confidence when to outward seeming we were powerless,
then surely we are much better off today when we are a free
people with the strength of a great country behind us. Why
then should our faith and our confidence in ourselves
weaken? It is true that we have tremendous economic and
other difficulties to face; it is also true that while we have
rehabilitated lakhs of refugees, large numbers still remain to
be helped and rehabilitated. But we have faced even bigger
problems in the past. Why should we not face these in the
same way also? We must not let our minds get entangled in
petty questions and difficulties and forget the main issues.

We belong to a great country, a country that is not only
great physically but in things far more important. If we are
to be worthy of our country, we must have big minds and
big hearts, for small men cannot face big issues or accomplish
big tasks. Let each one of us do his duty to his country and
to his people and not dwell too much on the duty of others.
Some people get into the habit of criticizing others without
doing anything themselves. Nothing good can come out of that
type of criticism. So, wherever you may be, whether you are
in the Army or the Air Force or the Navy or in the civil
employ of the Government, each one of you must do your
duty efficiently and in a spirit of service to the nation. If
the vast number of our countrymen apply themselves to their
tasks in their innumerable capacities and co-operate with
others, forgetting the petty things that divide them, we shall
marvel at the speed with which India will progress.

I want you to think for a moment of the days when we
fought the battle of India’s freedom without ar ms and

TWO YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE

S

without much by way of resources. We had a great leader
who inspired us. We had other leaders, too, but it was the
masses of this country who bore the brunt of the struggle.
They had faith in their country and their leaders and they
relied upon themselves. Today, we have more strength than
we ever had. It is, therefore, surprising that some people
should feel dejected, have no confidence in themselves and
complain all the time.

Let us get back the purposefulness, the enthusiasm, the
self-confidence and the faith which moved us at the time
of our struggle for freedom. Let us put aside our petty
quarrels and factions and think only of the grea' objective
before us.

In our foreign policy, we have proclaimed that we shall
join no power bloc and endeavour to co-opeiate and be
friendly with all countries. Our position in the world
ultimately depends on the unity and strength of the country,
on how far we proceed in the solution of our economic and
other problems and on how much we can raise the depressed
masses of India. We may not be able to complete that task,
for it is colossal. Even so, if we make some headway it will
be easier for others to complete the task.

A nation’s work never ends. Men may come and go,
generations may pass but the life of a nation goes on. We
must remember the basic fact that we can achieve little unless
there is peace in the country, no matter what policy we
pursue. There are some misguided people who indulge in
violence and try to create disorder. I wonder how anybody
with the least intelligence can think in terms of such
anti-national activities. Bomb throwing, for instance, can do
the country no good. On the contrary, it further aggravates
our economic situation, which is a source of great anxiety to
us. Therefore, it is the duty of everyone, no matter what his
politics, to help in the maintenance of peace in the country.

The people have every right to change laws and even to
change governments and they can exercise that right in a
peaceful and democratic manner. But those who choose the
path of violence have no faith in democracy. If their way
were to prevail, there would be complete chaos in the country

4

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

and the condition of the people would deteriorate even more.
All progress would cease and the next few generations would
have to carry a heavy burden.

I am still more distressed by those who, while condemning
violence, join hands with those who indulge in violence. They
think only in terms of winning an election and forget that the
cause of the country and of the people is bigger than any
party. If we forget India and her people while pursuing our
smaller objectives, then we are indeed guilty of betraying our
country. I wish to emphasize that all of us must understand
that our most important objective is the safety and security
of India and the prosperity and advancement of her people.
That can only be achieved effectively if we stop quarrelling
amongst ourselves and try to solve the great problems that
confront us by democratic and peaceful methods.

We must look at our problems in a proper perspective.
If we are preoccupied with petty problems, we shall fail to
solve the larger and more important ones.

We must learn to depend on ourselves and not look to
others for help every time we are in trouble. Certainly we
want to make friends with the rest of the world. We also seek
the goodwill and co-operation of all those who reside in this
country, whatever their race or nationality. We welcome
help and co-operation from every quarter but we must
depend primarily on our own resources. We should not forget
that those who lean too much on others tend to become
weak and helpless themselves. A country’s freedom can be
preserved only by her own strength and self-reliance.

We are not hostile to any country and we do not want to
meddle in other people’s affairs. Every nation should be
free to choose the path it considers best. We do not wish to
interfere with the freedom of other nations and we expect
them to feel the same about our freedom. That is why we
have decided not to join any of the power blocs in the world.
We will remain aloof and try to be friendly to all. We intend
to progress according to our own ideas. We have decided to
follow this policy, not only because it is essentially a sound
one from our country’s point of view but also because it
seems to be the only way to serve the cause of world peace.

TWO YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE

5

Another world war will spell ruin and we shall not escape
the general disaster. We are determined to make every possible
effort in the cause of peace. That explains our present foreign
policy.

Perhaps you know that I am shortly going to visit a
country which is great and powerful. I propose to carry with
mie a message of friendship and assurances of co-operation
from our people. Keeping our own freedom intact, we wish
to befriend other nations. Our friendship with one country
should not be interpreted as hostility to another.

Asia is passing through a great revolutionary phase and
naturally India has also been affected. In other parts of
Asia there is struggle and ferment. This morning’s newspaper
contained the news of trouble and upheaval in a small
but important country of Western Asia. We do not know
all the facts and in any event I do not wish to express an
opinion. All I want to say is that the prevalence of violence
and violent methods weaken a country and undermine her
progress.

In Eastern Asia, a great and ancient country is experienc-
ing revolutionary changes of tremendous significance.
Whatever our individual reactions to these may be, our
policy, namely, that we do not wish to interfere in any way
with the internal affairs of other countries, is clear. Each
country should have the freedom to go the way it chooses.
It is for its people to decide their future. Any attempt at
outside interference or compulsion must necessarily lead to
evil results. No country can impose freedom on any other.
That is a contradiction in terms. The world has a great deal
of variety and it should be no one’s business to suppress this
variety or to impose ways of thinking and acting on others.
We should, therefore, survey world events in a spirit of
understanding and friendship to all.

Our Constituent Assembly is busy framing a new
constitution for India and soon we shall adopt a republican
form of government. However, laws and constitutions do not
by themselves make a country great. It is the enthusiasm,
energy and constant effort of a people that make it a great
nation. Men of Law lay down constitutions but history is

2—1 1 DPD/65

6

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-195S

really made by great minds, large hearts and stout arms;
by the sweat, tears and toil of a people.

Let us, therefore, learn to study our country's problems
in the larger perspective of the world and let us not permit
the minor questions of the day to overwhelm us. I have faith
in India and her great destiny. A country must have military
strength but armed power does not by itself constitute a
country’s real strength. Her real strength lies in the capacity
of her people for disciplined work. Only hard work can
produce wealth for us and rid us of our poverty. Each one
of us, man or woman, young or old, must, therefore toil and
work. Rest is not for us. We did not win our freedom so that
we might rest afterwards but in order to work harder to
hold and strengthen that freedom. There is a great difference
between the voluntary labour of a free man for an objective
of his choice and the drudgery of a slave. Our labours as
free men and women will lay the foundations for a great
future and our labour of love for the cause of India and her
people will endure; so will the fact that we are building,
brick by brick, the great mansion of free India. There is joy
in such work and even when we have departed that work will
be there for future generations to see.

One of our most important problems today is that of
growing more food. We must avoid wasting food at all costs.
We must conserve our present resources with great care. We
have to tighten our belts. If the co-operation of the people is
forthcoming, we shall solve not only this problem but many
others. Our petty squabbles and party differences can wait.
What is vital and important for us is to keep before us the
picture of a great India. India is enduring and will continue
to be there long after we are gone.

A HISTORIC DAY

17 vents crowd in upon us and because of their quick
succession we are apt to miss their significance. Some of
us give messages on every occasion exhorting people to great
endeavour and even these messages become stale for
repetition.

Yet, undoubtedly, January 26, 1950, is a day of high
significance for India and the Indian people. It does mean
the consummation of one important phase of our national
struggle. That journey is over, to give place to another and
perhaps more arduous journey. A pledge is fulfilfi 1 and the
fulfilment of every pledge gi\es satisfaction ant! stiength for
future endeavour.

There is a peculiar appropi iateness about l lis January
26, for this day links up the past with the piesent and this
present is seen to grow out of that past. Twenty years ago
we took the first pledge of independence. During these
twenty years we have known struggle anti conflict and failure
and achievement. The man who led us through apparent
failure to achievement is no more with us but the fruit of his
labours is ours. What we do with this fruit depends upon
many factors, the basic factors being those or. which Gandhiji
laid stress throughout his career — high character, integrity
of mind and purpose, a spirit of tolerance and co-operation
and hard work. I can only suggest to our people that we
should found our republican freedom on these basic charac-
teristics and shed fear and hatred from our minds and think
always of the betterment of the millions of oui people.

We are fortunate to witness the emergence ol the
Republic of India and our successors may well envy us this
day; but fortune is a hostage which has to be zealously
guarded by our own good work and which has a tendency
to slip away if we slacken in our efforts or if we look in wrong
directions.

Message to the Nation, Januar\ 26, 1950

REFUGEE AND OTHER PROBLEMS

t t has been said repeatedly that various matters have not

been mentioned in the President’s Address or have been
inadequately mentioned. I submit, Sir, that the President’s
Address is not a survey of all the problems of India, important
or unimportant. The President’s Address, if I may say
so, is not modelled on the Address of the President of the
United States of America. It is meant to be a brief statement
indicating the general relations of India with the world and
the work we have before us. It cannot, therefore, in the very
nature of things, take into consideration all the matters that
have been raised, though they are, no doubt, important.
Generally speaking, it is not a controversial document, except
that Government policy itself may be called controversial
by some people. It is a brief document and certainly not
meant to be comprehensive. I would beg the House to
remember that. It is a brief statement of the broad lines of
the Government’s policy made, as far as possible, in a
non-controversial spirit. Therefore, much of the criticism is
somewhat wide of the mark, although the points raised may
be important.

One of the points that is certainly important was
mentioned by the hon. Member who just spoke; it concerns
Kashmir. Important as the Kashmir issue is, there is nothing
that the President could have said about it. Enough has been
said about it already and, as the House knows, the issue is
at present before the Security Council of the United Nations.
It is a little difficult for the President or for the Government
to say much about it at this particular stage. I have said
a good deal about it in this House and elsewhere on several
occasions. When the occasion arises, I shall certainly come
to this House and inform you of any new development that
takes place.

About the elections, may I assure the hon. Member and
the House that in so far as this Government is concerned, we
have taken every step that we can and we will take every

Speech in Parliament, New Delhi, November 15, 1950

REFUGEE AND OTHER PROBLEMS

9

step to ensure that the elections are absolutely free and fair
and that every group and party has full and equal
opportunity. We have impressed this upon the Election
Commission and I believe the Election Commission itself
has taken great care to see that it functions in that way and
it shall continue to do so.

•' I am perfectly prepared to agree with another hon.
Member that the situation of the displaced persons is very
far from satisfactory. He mentioned some cases of deplorable
and sad happenings. It is no good denying them. But we
have to view the situation as a whole and decide what we
can do about it. Accepting the criticism of the hon Member,
I would, nevertheless, submit two or three broau generali-
zations for the consideration of this House. We 1 ave had to
face a refugee problem of such magnitude tl.it I doubt
whether any other country in the world has had to face
anything similar. I submit — for the moment I am talking
about the refugees from Western Pakistan — that compared
with the way in which the refugee problem has been dealt
with in other countries, our results have been creditable. I
do not say that they are satisfactory; that is a different thing.
I only say that they compare well. There have been refugee
problems in the past and there are refugee problems even
today in many countries of the world — Germany, Japan and
many countries of Europe after the war. Refugees from the
last war still continue to live in camps in many countries of
Europe. That is the first point.

The second point concerns East Pakistan, West Bengal
and Assam. The situation is not at all satisfactory, I admit
unreservedly. Nevertheless, I would submit to this House
that it is rather extraordinary that large numbers of migrants
are returning to their homes. No doubt, if they are provided
with better conditions they will not return. No doubt, if you
provide employment for the unemployed, they would choose
to remain here. But the point is that large numbers of Hindus
from East Pakistan and large numbers of Muslims from
West Bengal and Assam left their homes through fear or
apprehension or whatever it was. At that time nothing else
counted but immediate fear. 1 can assure you that something

10

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

has happened to make them go back. They have, on the
whole, preferred going back to remaining here and the
number of people who have gone back, both Hindus and
Muslims, is really astonishing. Even in my most optimistic
moments I did not expect this big flowback which has taken
place during the last six weeks or so. That, of course, does
not mean that conditions are wholly satisfactory and that
they have no difficulty to contend with. Nevertheless, it does
show that there is an improvement in their condition. The
other information we have also tends to show that there is a
definite improvement, whether it be in the number of
dacoities or in the security of life. Much of what the hon.
Member has said is true; I am not denying that. But these
things have resulted from a large number of factors including
certain basic and fundamental conflicts that exist between
India and Pakistan. Not that it is so only here; it is so all over
the country, which fact raises big issues into which I am not
going at present. I do submit that the situation in East
Pakistan and West Bengal is far better from the point of
view of migrants and displaced persons than it was about six
months ago.

The hon. Member referred to the question of citizenship.
There is no doubt, of course, that those displaced persons who
have come to settle in India are bound to have their citizen-
ship. If the law is inadequate in this respect, the law should
be changed. The real difficulty arises in connection with the
elections and the date to be fixed for holding them. Now,
this House, I believe, once changed the date for the prepara-
tion of electoral rolls at the last session with the result that
almost all the work that had been done was largely, though
not entirely, wasted. We had to start afresh and do everything
again. If you go about changing these dates, it means
enormous labour, enormous expense and fresh delays. Now
it has been complained that by fixing a date for the prepara-
tion of electoral rolls, lakhs of displaced people have been
disfranchised. But I do not think the number the hon.
Member gave is correct. The hon. Member said that fifty
lakhs of people had been disfranchised. I do not agree that
any such number has been affected, because in any case, a

THE GENERAL ELECTIONS

11

very large portion of this fifty lakhs came before that date.
Another difficulty arises at present. Quite a considerable
number of people are going back daily. On an average, the
surplus going back may be as much as 1,500 or 2,000 a day.
The situation is, therefore, a fluid one. One is not quite sure
as to who will go back and who will not. Therefore, it is a
little difficult to lay down hard and fast rules at the present
moment. Things may improve a little later.

One thing more. A good deal has been said about the
Government’s indifferent treatment of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes. I do not think it would be quite
correct to say that it is due to a lack of interest. But it is true
to say that much that ought to be done has not been done
and cannot be done because of lack of resources and other
difficulties. We can appoint a commission if y< u like. It is
easy enough to appoint a commission. But as the House
knows, the appointment of a commission is sometimes only
a way out of a difficulty, for it makes people think they are
doing something when they really are not doing much. We
do not deliberately want to delude the public when we know
that we do not have the wherewithal to do much good. I
may inform the House that, as far as the appointment of the
Special Officer for the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled
Castes is concerned, the President has already decided upon
this appointment and if it has not been announced yet it will
be announced very soon.

THE GENERAL ELECTIONS

j am going to speak to you tonight about the General Elec*
x tions. All of you know something about them and there is
naturally a great deal of interest in the country on this subject.
It is right that each one of you should take an interest in this
democratic process which is taking place on a scale yet
unknown to history. It is also important that you take interest

Speech broadcast from All India Radio, Delhi, November 22, 1951

12 JAYVAHARLAl. NEHRU'S SPEECHES 19-19-1953

as citizens of the Republic of India, the future of which will,
no doubt, be affected by these elections. Democracy is based
on the active and intelligent interest of the people in their
national affairs and in the elections that result in the
formation of governments.

Let us first have an idea of the extent to which the
General Elections will affect the country. There are altogether
2,293 constituencies in India. These include constituencies
for Parliament, that is, for the House of the People and the
Council of States and for the Legislative Assemblies and
Councils in the States. Altogether 4,412 representatives will
be chosen for these various Legislatures.

The number of voters on our electoral rolls is about
176,600,000. The number of polling booths will approxi-
mately be 224,000.

Each polling booth will have to be manned by a Presiding
Officer, five clerks and four policemen. As elections will not
take place all over India simultaneously, part of the staff
required will do duty in more than one place. A rough
estimate of the specialized staff required is:

Presiding Officers ... ... 56,000

Clerks ... ... 280,000

Policemen ... ... 224,000

To these will be added vast numbers of Government servants
and voluntary workers. Indeed, the whole machinery
of the State will be especially geared for the elections.
The estimated cost of these elections, both for the Central
Government and State Governments, is approximately
Rs. 100,000,000.

I have referred only to the official staff; but in addition
there will be an election agent for every candidate as well as
other agents and assistants.

Thus, the number of people engaged in these elections,
besides the voters, is very large. Indeed, the entire organiza-
tion has been built on a colossal scale and is a test for all of
us. The gigantic preparation for the actual business of polling
has been preceded by a tremendous amount of human
labour. To begin with, the electoral rolls had to be prepared.
You can imagine ivhat a great quantity of paper must have

THE GENERAL ELECTIONS

IS

been required for these rolls and the vast amount of printing
which had to be done.

Unfortunately, many of our voters are not literate and
we have, therefore, to provide coloured boxes with emblems
for different parties and candidates. This introduces a fresh
burden which the Governments at the Centre and in the
States have to shoulder. For the purpose, they have had to
build up a huge staff which functions under the Central
Election Commission. But no amount of governmental
organization can make these elections a success unless the
people themselves co-operate It is, therefore, of the utmost
importance for our people that they understand all the
processes which lead us to their vote and give us their
intelligent co-operation.

Many organized parties are running candida.es for these
elections. It is also likely that there will be some independent
candidates. Every party and every candidate must be given
a fair and equal chance in these elections. The fact that one
party happens to be in charge of government does not entitle
it to any special privileges during the elections. Officers of
the Government must function impartially. Strict instruc-
tions have been issued to all of them by the Central and the
State Governments, that they should carry out their duties
with the strictest neutrality. The law has laid down penalties
for any improper conduct on the part of a public servant.
The Election Commission has also issued similar warnings
on several occasions and suitable action will certainly be
taken in regard to improper or illegal conduct.

Candidates and their agents must remember their duties
and obligations and make it a point to be well acquainted
with the complicated law on the subject of elections. Any
error or lapse may disqualify them.

The Ministers of the Government, many of whom will
themselves be standing as candidates for election, have a
difficult task before them. They must not utilize their official
position to further their own election prospects in any way.
They must try to separate, as far as possible, their official
duties from their electoral or private work. Detailed
instructions to this effect have been issued.

14

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

It should always be remembered that the National Flag
must not be used or exploited for party purposes. Indeed,
there are strict rules as to when the National Flag may be
used officially. It must not be used for any election
purpose.

The whole object of democratic elections is to ascertain
the views of the electorate on major problems and to enable
the electorate to select their representatives. Parties place
their programmes before the public and carry on intensive
propaganda to convince the electorate of the virtues of each
individual programme as well as of the demerits of other
programmes. These conflicting approaches are supposed to
educate and enlighten the electorate and enable it to choose
rightly.

For some reason, elections cause a great deal of excite-
ment and sometimes even passion. Unfortunately, this
excitement may also lead to improper behaviour and to a
lowering of normal standards of democracy. We have to be
on our guard against this. It is of the utmost importance that
all of us, whatever the party to which we belong, should
maintain a high level of propriety and decorous behaviour.
Our propaganda by speech or in writing should not be
personal but should deal with policies and programmes. It
should on no account be allowed to degenerate into personal
criticism and abuse. The standard we set up now will act as
a precedent and govern future elections

The elections have already begun and polling has taken
place in some of the remote valleys of Himachal Pradesh.
This had to be done now because in mid-winter the
mountain passes are closed and travelling becomes very
difficult. For the same reason, a few constituencies in the
mountainous parts of Uttar Pradesh will poll next February.
These are exceptional cases and polling will take place over
the length and breadth of the country in January on the
dates which have already been announced.

I have given you a simple and rather bald account of
these elections. I should like you, however, to try and realize
the deep significance of this great adventure of the Indian
people. Hundreds of millions of people in India will

THE GENERAL ELECTIONS

15

determine the future of this country. They will put their
voting papers in terms of thousands of ballot boxes indicating
their choice and will or should do so peacefully. Out of these
voting papers will emerge the Members of the Parliament
of India and of the State Assemblies and we shall accept the
result of this election without question.

■' That is the essence of democracy. All of us naturally
want the cause we represent to triumph and we strive for
that end. In a democracy, we have to know how to win
and also how to lose with grace. Those who win should not
allow this to go to their heads, those who lose should not feel
dejected.

The manner of winning or losing is even more important
than the result. It is better to lose in the right way than to
win in the wrong way. Indeed, if success cones through
misconceived effort or wiong means, then the value of that
success itself is lost.

There have been interminable arguments about ends
and means in India. Do wrong means justify right ends?
So far as we, in India, are concerned we decided long ago
that no end, for which wrong means were employed, could
be right. If we apply that principle to the elections, we must
come to the conclusion that it is far better that the person
with wrong ends in view be elected than that the persons
whose aims are worthy should win through dubious methods.
If dubious methods are employed, then the rightness of the
aims becomes meaningless.

I lay stress upon this because it is important and because
there is a tendency, during election time, to disregard all
standards of behaviour. I earnestly hope that every candidate
along with his supporters will remember that to some extent
he has the honour of India in his keeping and conduct
himself accordingly.

For the 4,412 seats to be filled, there are innumerable
applicants. Out of these, a limited number will be chosen to
contest the seats, so that there will be a large number of
people who are not chosen as candidates or who, being
chosen, do not succeed. I hope that those who fall out in the
first or the second round will not take it too much to heart.

16 JAWAHAR1 ,AL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1958

There is a mistaken impression that one can serve India only
if one goes to the legislatures. No doubt people can serve
India in the legislatures but perhaps they can do so much
better outside. Elections will come again and there is no
point in getting too excited about them. Let us face them
calmly and take them in our stride.

I should like to add something I have often said before.
We owe a special duty to our minority communities and to
those who are backward economically or educationally and
who form the largest part of the population of India. We are
all clamouring for our rights and privileges. It is more
important to remember our duties and responsibilities.

Let us then face this great adventure of our General
Elections with good heart and spirit and try to avoid ill-will
even in regard to those who oppose us. Thus, we shall lay
the firm foundations of the democratic structure of this great
Republic.

LOOKING BACK

T have listened with care and earnestness to this four-day
debate and have sometimes been astonished at the things
that have been said. 1 am perhaps at a disadvantage compared
with hon. Members on the opposition benches, because I
must speak with restraint. I cannot be casual about other
countries; I cannot either condemn or praise them in an
unrestrained manner. Hon. Members will appreciate that
the foreign policy of governments is not carried on in the
same way as public meetings are carried on and that the
phraseology which comes easily to some hon. Members on
the other side of the House cannot be used when responsible
people speak about other countries.

First of all, I should like to remove, if I can, the strange
misconception that exists about the President’s Address.

Speech in the House of the People, New Delhi, May 22, 1952

LOOKING BACK

17

Hon. Members have complained that many things were
overlooked in the Address. Hundreds of amendments have
been proposed or hinted at. It must be realized that the
Address is not meant to be a catalogue of all the things that
have to be done. It is a brief, concise statement, with occa-
sional references to foreign policy or to the next session of
Parliament. -This session, however, is a budget session and,
as such, not much legislation can be undertaken, as is pointed
out in the President’s Address. In any event, it is neither
possible nor desirable that the President’s Address should
contain long lists of the things we wish to do. Therefore,
complaints about the summaiy nature of the Address betray
certain misapprehensions about the situation. An hon.
Member from Manipur spoke of the tribal people, in parti-
cular about the Nagas. I attach the greatest ir. porta nee to
the tribal people of India and I hope that this House will
consider the matter more fully at the proper time, not only
because of the large number of tribal folk in the country but
also because they have a very special culture which should
be protected and encouraged to advance along the lines of
its own genius. I do not want the tribal culture of India to
be overwhelmed or exploited just because the people to
whom it belongs happen to be simple folk.

Some hon. Members complained that nothing was said
about the refugees in the Address. On a previous occasion,
full particulars of the rehabilitation of refugees were given
in the President’s Address. I do not see the point of repeated
references unless hon. Members merely wish the President to
go on saying that the Government wishes well by the refugees.

I should like to say a few words about something Dr
Mookerjee and perhaps one or two other Members opposite
said. They asked the Government to co-operate with the
Opposition in regard to the policies that are likely to be
pursued. We would welcome co-operation from every
Member of this House, whether he sits on this side of the
House or on the opposite. It is possible that there are basic
differences of opinion but I feel sure that there is a large
field on which there can be co-operation. Where there, is
difference of opinion, it is always a good thing to see and

18

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

hear the other point of view before finalizing one’s own.
Naturally, the Government has to make its own decisions;
but in doing so, it certainly wishes to consult and have the
views of the other Members of the House, whoever they
might be.

Having said that, I would like to add that it is not always
an easy matter. Stress has been laid by some hon. Members
on the fact that the majority party in this House represents
about 45 per cent of the electorate. I take that figure to be
correct because I have no means of judging it myself; but
then, of course, the question arises as to what mathematical
percentage hon. Members on the other side represent. It
will interest the House to know that the Members of the
Communist Party plus the People’s Democratic Front of
Hyderabad, etc., represent 4.45 per cent. The Socialist Party
represents 10.5 per cent, the K.M.P. Party 5.8 per cent and
the Jan Sangh 3 per cent. The Scheduled Castes Federa-
tion represents 2.3 per cent, the Independents 1.5 per cent
and so on till the fractions become infinitesimal. The hon.
Members who form the Opposition represent a great variety
of opinion — I say so with all respect — and if colours were to
represent if, there would be scarlet, all hues of red. pink,
yellow and deep blue. If I describe the representation in the
normal language of the West, we have in the Opposition
every shade of opinion from extreme left to extreme right.
These various opinions hold together under the stress of
circumstances; often there are marriages of convenience,
followed by rapid divorces. On the whole, these strange
bedfellows consort together because they share the spirit of
opposition to the majority group. I am not criticizing; I am
merely pointing out the fact that where you have such a
motley array, consultations are not easy to hold. But I do
.wish to stress that we are desirous of co-operation wherever
possible. We welcome the Members of the Opposition to
this House because they undoubtedly represent a certain
section of Indian opinion and also because vigorous opposi-
tion does not allow of complacency. If I may strike a personal
note, the faces of old comrades who now belong to the Oppo-
sition bring back memories of the past to me. I do not wish

LOOKING BACK

19

to forget them and I refuse to accept that there is no way of
co-operating with those who gave us their co-operation in
the past. It is in this spirit that I extend my hand to those on
the opposite side of the House.

It would be easy to address my friends in an argumenta-
tive manner, to bandy words with them or to score debating
.points over them; but the matters we are considering on
this occasion have too grave an import for me to do
so.

An hon. Member told me that I had lost my place in
history because of my attraction for mere tinsel. Well, what
history does to me or to another individual is of little conse-
quence. What happens to India and her millions is, however,
a matter of the greatest consequence. Therefore, forgetting
the personal aspect for the moment, I should lik • to direct
your attention to certain basic facts of the situation.

Perhaps, there will be great differences of opinion when
we consider important things like the economic issues con-
fronting our country, even though a great deal of agreement
exists as to the ideals and objectives. We may have differences
about the methods of achieving those objectives or the speed
or the cost; but there is a certain vital method of approach
which has obsessed my mind and which, I hope, other hon.
Members will also consider. You may have principles and
ideals but you cannot divorce them from the particular
context in which you are working. The Communist Party
in India has changed its policy many times in the last few
years. It is quite free to do so. It is not for me to lay down
their policy. I am merely pointing out that they changed
their policy repeatedly, because they found themselves
off the track, because they found themselves losing what
they aimed to get and what they knew to be most important,
that is, the confidence of the Indian people. They were
compelled by circumstances to give up the very things for
which they had been clamouring so loudly a few months
before. It goes to show that one cannot pursue an ideal
regardless of its context or consequences. If one does, one’s
ideals get lost and other things which one believed to be
safe also go with them.

20

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

Recent history, particularly in Europe, shows how
conflicts between various progressive forces resulted, not in
the victor)’ of those forces but in the victory of the most naked
form of fascism. People talk about revolution, perhaps believe
in it and perhaps work out the consequences; but, because
they do not adequately judge the circumstances, they act
wrongly, thus opening the door to counter-revolution. In
spite of active progressive movements, something completely
reactionary holds the field in the country. It is not enough
to strive for great objectives; it is equally important, if not
more so, to achieve them through right methods. I suppose
I shall be told that this is a platitude; but all the great truths
of the world are ancient platitudes. And in any case, the
well-worn cliches hon. Members of the Opposition often
indulge in are no answer to ancient platitudes.

Four and a half years ago, in August 1947, independence
came to us suddenly and, so far as the British were concerned,
peacefully. That was an advantage because a peaceful
transfer such as we had made it easier for us to build than it
would othenvise have been. I wonder how vividly Members
remember that period. It is history now and the public
memory is short. However, enormous upheavals, migrations
and massacres followed. We had suddenly to face a situation
in which the services — the army, the police, the telephone,
the telegraph, the wireless and all means of transport — were
dislocated. Then came the migrations of millions of unhappy
people who had lost everything. I do not know of a single
instance of this kind in history. Well, we had to face this and
much more. Reactionary forces disapproved of the change-
over from the British to the new nationalist Government and
wanted to undermine the latter. Feudal, communal and
other elements naturally did not want the new Government
to work for social and economic change. To support the
communal upheaval all kinds of counter-revolutionary
movements started in northern India. Our friends from the
South may not have any idea of all these because they were
so far from the scene of action. The reactionary forces, how-
ever, could not have triumphed because they did not have
enough strength for that. For a period, the future of India

LOOKING BACK

21

hung in the balance because these forces had a destructive
strength which, if it had triumphed, would undoubtedly
have spread all over India. We should have had a long
period of anarchic violence for no purpose. India would have
been disrupted and the States would have fought amongst
themselves. In other words, we would have repeated that
•period of our history in which the British power established
itself in India.

Fortunately, things did not come to such a pass. But it
took us years to control this grave situation and to arrange
for the rehabilitation of the refugees.

At such a time, it would have been the dut\ of any
government India might have had to try and re-establish law
and order and to see that the unity and stability of the
country were maintained. Our economic and social ideals
had to be shelved, because they could not have flourished
unless India was united and unless there was a measure of
peace and stability in the country. It was because of such
considerations that we thought it essential to lay the greatest
stress on bringing conditions back to normal.

We were still trying to establish order in the country
when trouble started in Kashmir followed shortly afterwards
by trouble in feudal Hyderabad. To be quite frank, no one
knew in those years at what moment there might not be
war with Pakistan. We lived on the verge of a crisis for a
considerable period, not knowing when the Kashmir struggle
might turn into war. We were also apprehensive lest
Hyderabad should lead to war. We, on our part, were
determined not to go to war with Pakistan but we did not
know what the people or the Government of Pakistan would
do. Naturally, we had to be prepared for all contingencies.
In this hour of great national peril, which was certainly not
a Congress Party matter, I regret to say that we did not get
such co-operation from any of the groups and parties
represented on the other side of the House. The communal
parties aided and abetted these disruptive tendencies and
our friends of the Communist Party tried to take advantage
of a national difficulty by causing trouble all over the country,
both in small ways and big. During the months when the

3—11 DPD/65

22

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

peril to the country was at its greatest, the communists let
loose a violent movement in Telengana. Surely, the eloquent
Members of the Opposition cannot have been ignorant of
the background of die country at this time and yet they
did things which might well have shattered India and made
it go to pieces. That their sympathies were just and their
cause noble is irrelevant, because the cause itself was bound
to suffer and fail if they did not safeguard the interests of a
united India.

Hon. Members have spoken of the currents of history and
of historical forces. By all means let us judge things in the
context of history and historical forces. Let us beware of
where the historical current is leading us; if that current itself
goes over a precipice, it will be dashed into a thousand little
streamlets and will no longer be a current. In those critical
days, the first objective of every Indian should have been to
see that India held together and remained united.

I should have drawn parallels with other countries to
bring my point home but I do not wish to make invidious
comparisons or speak ill of any country. Of course, we as a
government have also made mistakes; we could have done
many things which we did not do and we should have avoided
doing some things we did. I admit our failings; but I do
submit to this House that this Government — I may even say,
the Congress Party — has performed an essential historic
function by holding India together and by laying down the
basic foundations on which can be built the future social and
economic structure of India. I would say that the Congress
satisfies the same need in the country even to this day. The
Congress Party has gained a large measure of sympathy from
the public and continues to do so. The moment it ceases to per-
form its duty or fails to change or prepare itself for new tasks,
that moment the Congress will have become a spent force. To
function effectively, a government must attune itself to the
current of human events and history. If, on the other hand, it
diverges from reality, then it will stagnate and cease to be.

With respect to the Communist Party, I would like to
repeat something I have often said before. I recognize the
worth of many individuals in the Communist Party. They

LOOKING BACK

2S

are brave people. However, I am compelled to add that they
sometimes seem to be completely out of touch with the
present-day world. A strange thing to say of a party which
considers itself to be the vanguard of human progress! I
admit that there is something about their theories which, to
some extent, justifies their claim. There is something about
' them which seems to recognize the direction in which, I
think, the world will ultimately go; but they also have some-
thing which makes them as rigid as the old religious bigots.
So far as I am concerned, I have always refused to bow to the
bigotry of any religion and I likewise refuse to bow to the
bigotry of this new religion.

In the present phase of human history, we stand on the
verge. We may be led to grave disaster or to a new world and
we must decide which of the two should have our support.
Of course, I cannot lay down any rules of behaviour but it is
obvious enough that the way of war is not the way we or any
country, for that matter, should pursue; and war does not
only mean actual warfare. What is nowadays called a ‘cold’ war
is dangerous, not only because it leads to a shooting war but
also because it coarsens and degrades humanity and because
it threatens to surround us with hatred, anger and violence.

I cannot offer any logical proof of this but I am absolutely
convinced that the way of hatred, violence or anger is bound
to lead us astray. And indeed, recent history affords examples
of how disastrous a shooting war or a cold war can be. We
may apportion the blame to this party or that and have our
own private or public opinions but that will not help in the
least. It passes my comprehension how any social or economic
order can be established in a war-shattered country. It may,
perhaps, take generations just to overcome the ravages of
war and to restore the country to some semblance of order.
Those who disapprove of communism and consider it an
enemy cannot conceivably put an end to communism through
war. What will happen after that war, I do not know, except
that large-scale destruction and anarchy will seize the world.

I do not think that it is right for us — either as individuals
or as a nation — to follow a path which coarsens and degrades
us and which leads to the international vulgarity we see all

24

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-195S

around. If hon. Members of the Opposition will forgive me,
the methods they adopt in the national sphere coarsen and
degrade them, even though their ultimate motives are
worthy. I do not say that the methods of my colleagues are
always worthy or refined but it makes a good deal of differ-
ence whether coarse methods are adopted by a group
deliberately or whether an individual slips into them
through human weakness. Therefore, I wish to have no co-
operation with violence or coarseness or vulgarity. I would
appeal to hon. Members of the Opposition to feel that and
act the same way. It is obvious that violence, vulgarity and
coarseness degrade people; once you let them enter into
you, it is not easy to get rid of them. India is a large country
in which many forces are at work. Some tend to disrupt,
others to consolidate. Today, it is a matter of the utmost
consequence that the disruptive forces in India do not gain
strength. If we indulge in violence even for a supposed good
cause, I have not the shadow of a doubt that it will result
in ultimate disruption. It may mean civil war, which, from
the standpoint of vulgarity, coarseness and the spirit of
violence, is worse than international war. It is because of
this that the promotion of law and order becomes part of the
normal business of a government. As I said, law and order
are words I do not fancy very much but it is the bounden
duty of any government, any group or any individual who
thinks rightly, to prevent violence, to prevent the degradation
or disintegration of our public life and the civil conflicts that
it may bring about. We cannot have both civil conflict and
economic progress at the same time. If we wait for economic
progress till after we have resolved civil conflicts, we shall
have to pay a terrible price for it.

I admire the achievements of great countries like Russia
and China. I do not, however, admire everything that has
happened there. First of all, it is well to remember the colossal
price that was paid in the Russian Revolution. How far we
are prepared to pay that price, I do not know. With all
respect to the leaders of the Russian people, I wonder
whether they would not try other ways of achieving their
ideals if they had another chance. I doubt that they would

LOOKING BACK

25

choose violence again. However, that is a matter of opinion.
We must also remember that it is now more than 35 years
ago that their revolution began. It is not fair to compare
the results of such a long period of intense effort with ours.
Besides, the Russian people started with a fairly clean slate
and with absolute power to do what they wanted to; even
-so, -it has taken them a long time to achieve their aims.

An hon. Member spoke of education. It is highly
important, of course; and I deeply regret that we are not able
to do what we should in the field of education. The Russian
people and their leaders very rightly attached the greatest
importance to compulsory education after the Revolution.
And yet, in spite of their enthusiasm, it took them thirteen
years to make compulsory education available to c . ery single
individual in that great country. I know that i.. the early
days the Russian Revolution went through >ears of civil war
and other difficulties; hostile forces from outside had also to
be dealt with. We are faced with similar difficulties.

If we take to the sword, others will also do the same and
nobody knows whose sword will be the longest in the end.
Whatever the ultimate result of violence may be, we will lose
enormously. Apart from the loss of time, which is really lack
of progress, we will also pay in human misery and in human
resources.

China is a country for which I have the greatest admira-
tion. There have been big changes there. The hon. Member
Mr Hiren Mukerjee suggested that we emulate China. I will
be glad to do so as far as I can but I would like to remind
Mr Hiren Mukerjee that till only a year ago, China was
looked upon as a country where corruption, black marketing
and every kind of evil prevailed. Six months ago, the Govern-
ment of China said that they were shocked and amazed at
the amount of corruption in China. They started a great
movement, in which the biggest people were involved; and
effective steps were taken to end corruption. My point is that
the situation in China today is not quite what it was a year
ago. Perhaps, the People’s Government of China is more
effective than we are; let us by all means try to emulate them
in this respect.

26

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1958

After Independence we had gigantic tasks before us and
we had constantly to face difficulties, turmoil and trouble.
There were the post-war difficulties, difficulties followed the
Partition and there were the difficulties due to constant
tension with Pakistan. Apart from natural internal disasters,
like earthquakes, floods and drought, of which there were so
many, we had to face the Kashmir and Hyderabad issues.
We should, of course, expect some natural disaster every
year and provide for it but I must say we have been parti-
cularly unfortunate in this respect. I have said before that
the parties of the Opposition represented here were not very
helpful during those years. Of course, they might well have
differed with us in matters of high policy; instead, they
hindered us in every little thing. Let us take the example of
food procurement which is an essential thing. Many respected
people have tried to prevent us from having food subsidies.
Some of them even advocate a scorched earth policy so that
the Government may be unable to get enough food for the
people. It is easy to see that the object, far from co-operation,
was to injure the Government. The way chosen to injure
the Government was to injure the people of India. It is
open to Opposition to go against the Government but it is
dangerous, evil and cowardly to hit the very people whom
you seek to serve in order simply to shake and weaken a
government.

During these last four or five years we have had to con-
tend with a continuous barrage of propaganda, vituperation
and condemnation. I would like to ask the hon. Members on
the opposite side of the House whether the propaganda that
was conducted against us was justified in truth. I believe we
can stand comparison with any country so far as our achieve-
ments in the last four or five years are concerned. When the
great scheme of building the Dnepropetrovsk Dam was
undertaken as part of the first Five Year Plan of the U.S.S.R.

I remember that the whole country buzzed with it because
the people knew that it was to be the foundation of many
other and greater schemes. We, on the other hand, are
condemned and criticized when we are attempting something
bigger here.

LOOKING BACK

There are at least three major schemes, now in operation,
that are much bigger than the one in Soviet Russia. I am
merely stating a fact without making invidious comparisons.
I am quite sure that progress, such as we have made, would
have evoked praise from the hon. Members opposite if it
had been in Russia or China.

• May I point out that such an attitude is perverse and
jaundiced and indicates a closed mind? I agree that, owing
to the fact that our resources are limited, we in this country
have had to concentrate on small schemes which will bring
quick results; but if the country is to be industrialized major
schemes will also be necessary. In fact, industrialization
has been measured by the amount of electric power that a
country can produce. I am sure that the hon. Members of
the Opposition remembei that Lenin is believ. d to have
described communism as Soviet Russia plus electricity. I am
anxious to impress on the House that whatever has been done
in India in these five years cannot be dismissed as insigni-
ficant. Foreigners, even those from the gieat lands of Russia
and China, have often been surprised at the measure of our
achievements. Not that they necessarily agreed with our
policy. Unfortunately their access to news about India is
limited and those who do supply them with information
about this country are full of their own ideas and only too
readily condemn everything we have done.

Surely, not everything that the Government has done in
these four or five years was bad. If you condemn everything,
your condemnation is not really worth anything. Your point
of view can be valuable only if you look at the whole picture
and give credit where it is due and blame where it is neces-
sary. I should like hon. Members to go and see for themselves
some of the great river valley schemes. We shall welcome
them. I should like them to visit — here in Delhi if they like
■—our great laboratories. Everybody who has seen them has
been impressed by them.

I can say with some confidence that there is hardly any
other country in the world, perhaps including Russia also,
which can claim to have laid the foundations of scientific
progress as securely as we have in so short a period of time.

28

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

It is true that Russia is £ar more advanced than we are but I
am referring to the initial stages of development. The rate of
development defiends on the momentum with which we start
off. For instance, this enormous undertaking at Sindri for
the manufacture of fertilizers, the telephone factory at
Bangalore, the Chittaranjan Locomotive Works — all these
are really worth-while achievements of which we can be
justly proud. It is no good cavilling at these things. Let us
cavil at other things, if we must.

There are many among our countrymen who have been
abroad — I am not referring only to the hon. Members
opposite — whose chief function it has been to run India
down while they have been away. This is not what most
foreigners do. At home perhaps they quarrel among them-
selves but when they go abroad they speak favourably about
their own country rather than run it down. There are some
who have spoken against our National Flag, our National
Emblem, the Asoka Chakra, or our National Anthem. These
are not party symbols; they are National symbols. If any
group or party does not accept them, it offends against
national values and traditions.

At the beginning of the debate, one of the hon. Members
from the other side of the House made what seems to me to
be an astonishing statement; he described the President's
Address as a declaration of war on the people of India. I
suppose the phrase is parliamentary and he has every right
to use it. If that is the way he feels, then there is a war on
between him and us.

I cannot imagine anything more fantastic; I challenge
him to sit down with me and go through the President’s
Address phrase by phrase, word by word and then to explain
to me what he means by the statement. There was, I believe,
another hon. Member who referred to the same Address as
being callous. He had every right to say that the President’s
Address was full of platitudes, if that was his judgment. But
who are these people on whom this war has been declared?
Surely, not the people of India. Even if it is only 45 per cent
of them, we also represent the people of India here in this
House. Our President was also elected by the people of

LOOKING BACK

29

India. Do the hon. Members of the Opposition seriously
claim to be the sole repositories of the people’s confidence?
1 am amazed that they do and I do feel strongly that it was
wrong of them to have used such language in describing the
President’s Address. This warped outlook is by no means
uncommon. In fact, we have come up against it in regard to
.many other matters also. Look at the events of the last few
weeks. My remarks do not apply only to the party which the
hon. Members represent but to others, too. Time and again
we had heard of walk-outs from the various Assemblies by
certain sections of the House when the Governor or the
Rajpramukh entered it. I consider such conduct extra-
ordinary. One may like or dislike a particular Go\ ernor but
he is the representative head of a State. When h«- enters the
House, one normally pa)s one’s respects to him and this is
not a personal matter. But there have been deliberate affronts
to the heads of States. I cannot help thinking that this has
become a habit with this party of walkers-out! I hope that
people will give up these ways, for they are relics of the past.

In India we have very grave problems to face. Unless this
Government or any other for that matter can solve them,
it is of no use. Let me put it differently. So long as this
Government or the party which forms the Government acts
as a liberating force in this country, it will function effectively.
Once it becomes what hon. Members think it has become, it
will have ceased to be a liberating force and become a restric-
tive, repressive force. Then it will fade away in the process
of history. The mere fact that we have returned to this House
after one of the biggest elections in history shows that the
people of India — a very large number of them at any rate
— still think us capable of solving the country’s problems.

There are a number of other matters to which I should
like to refer briefly. Dr Mookerjee mentioned the subject of
passports between India and Pakistan. We had convened a
conference to discuss this matter but no agreement was
arrived at. There is not much more I can say about this
matter; but the House is aware that the Government of
India does not favour the introduction of a passport system
on the ground that it would restrict traffic between East

SO JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

Pakistan and India. In fact, the Agreement concluded
between the Prime Ministers of the two countries two and a
half years ago sought to limit the volume of this traffic at
its normal level. If Pakistan, however, introduces some kind
of a passport system on the other side, we will have to take
similar measures to deal with the situation. It is true that the
minorities in East Bengal have had a very raw deal and
continue to have a raw deal. The sympathy of this House
and that of a large number of people in this country is with
them. We have tried to help them as much as we can and we
shall continue to do so. There are, however, certain limits
to what we can do. Two independent countries, in their
mutual dealings, can bring pressure to bear on each other
through diplomatic means. There are also other means of
doing so but we do not wish to have recourse to them for they
can only bring misery.

I now wish to say a few words on the question of linguistic
provinces although we have explained our attitude to this
problem repeatedly. Quite frankly I feel that the formation
of linguistic provinces is desirable from certain points of
view. Our views on the subject are, however, immaterial.
For, if the people want them, they will have them and we
shall not stand in their way. For some years now, our fore-
most efforts have been directed to the consolidation of India.
Personally, I would look upon anything that did not help
this process of consolidation as undesirable. Even though the
formation of linguistic provinces may be advisable, in some
cases, this would obviously be the wrong time for it. When
the right time comes, let us have them by all means. Further,
we have laid down the rule that there should be a large
measure of agreement between the States affected by this
measure, before linguistic provinces can be formed. The
redistribution of boundaries which becomes necessary in
such cases inevitably involves the interest of rival groups and
States. Besides, financial and other considerations also arise
and it is found that the redistribution cannot be effected
without retarding the economic progress of the region con-
cerned and even that of the country at large. We have some-
times been asked to impose our decision upon one or all of

LOOKING BACK

31

the parties and achieve something at the point of the bayonet.
I think this attitude is completely wrong. If a large measure
of agreement can be secured, we can form such provinces,
although we would like this to be done without any untoward
consequences.

I attach the greatest importance to the subject of the
tribal people which I shall deal with next. In Assam and
elsewhere they have suffered greatly by the Partition. The
legacies left by the latter are still with us and many, who
were deprived of their means of livelihood at the time of
Partition, are still without employment. This happened
because they were cut off from neighbouring areas and this
state of affairs cannot be remedied unless these regions are
adequately connected with the rest of the country; but to
build roads on mountainous tracks is very expensi 'e. We have
already built a number of such roads and we are building
more. In about a fortnight from now, a conference will be held
to consider matters relating to the welfare of the tribal people.

The hon. Member from Manipur has raised the question
of compensation for the damage caused by the war in his
constituency. I do not know the details. It should normally
be the duty of the British Government to pay compensation
for this damage. We have, however, undertaken to discharge
this liability to some extent in this area and, I believe, we
have already paid between Rs. 25 and 30 lakhs as compen-
sation. Obviously, I cannot, without looking into the matter
closely, assure you that the payment of compensation has
been made fairly. A few Claims Officers have been appointed
and the payments are being made in consultation with the
local bodies. The process is still going on and claims are still
being considered.

The hon. Member from Travancore referred to our
policy in regard to the production and export of monazite.
Until recently, large quantities of monazite used to be sold
almost for a song. It suddenly became a highly strategic and,
therefore, valuable mineral. For a variety of reasons, we have
stopped its export, although some of it still continues to be
exported under licence. The material is not quite as expensive
as the hon. Member thought; he said it cost £250 per ton.

32

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

The price in America, at present, is half that figure. We
have, as a matter of fact, built a factory at Alwaye to separate
monazite from ilmenite and other rare earths. I have no
doubt that this factory will be of great advantage to the
State of Travancore and India. We decided sometime ago
that no material used in the manufacture of atomic bombs
should be exported from India. But we do not wish to forbid
the export of monazite where it is put to other uses. We
determine the volume of exports in terms of the foreign
exchange we can earn from them.

Much has been said about Kashmir. Dr Mookerjee
raised a question about Kashmir’s constitutional status and
he wanted to know if Kashmiris were Indians. Of course,
they are Indians, constitutionally and legally. If they want to
go abroad, they must have an Indian passport. When the
question of the merger of the States was first considered, four
or five years ago, almost all the States acceded in three
subjects only — foreign affairs, defence and communications.
A little later, when there was a raid on Kashmir, it also
acceded in respect of three subjects. There were further
developments in the other States and they acceded in some
additional subjects. During this period, we have had a con-
flict with Pakistan in regard to Kashmir because of the raids
and the war. The matter has been referred to the United
Nations. Therefore, it is not desired that any more changes
should take place in the status of Kashmir in relation to India
during this period of turmoil. Kashmir has acceded in the
basic subjects and is a part of India. So far as other subjects are
concerned, obviously the people of Kashmir have or rather
their Constituent Assembly has every right to pass any laws it
chooses. This is the constitutional position and it is quite
clear as far as I can see. At the moment, matters, such as the
financial integration of Kashmir with India, are under dis-
cussion and I have no doubt that they will gradually be
solved. The fact that such questions have always to be viewed
in their international background creates great difficulties.

Finally, I would like to speak to you about the rehabili-
tation of refugees. We are deeply conscious that a large
number of refugees, especially those coming from East

LINGUISTIC STATES

ss

Bengal, require to be rehabilitated; but, taking the problem
as a whole, I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that
our achievements in the field of rehabilitation have been
remarkable. Of course, ours is not the only country that has
had to undertake large-scale rehabilitation of refugees. The
United Nations have spent considerable sums of money for
a similar purpose all over the world. Other countries have
faced the same problems but the rehabilitation experts from
abroad have invariably expressed, in no uncertain manner,
their admiration for our achievements. I should like the
House to remember that we have accomplished the task of
rehabilitation without the least financial or other help from
abroad or from the United Nations. The whole burden has
been ours and we have borne it well. I must say that we
could not have succeeded if large numbers of me displaced
persons themselves had not co-operated with us in this task,
played their part and done their share of the work. They
showed amazing enterprise and courage in building them-
selves up anew. The great tragedy of the migrations turned
into a sign of hope for us, for it showed us that ultimately
our people can face tragedy and overcome it.

LINGUISTIC STATES

J entirely agree with Dr Lanka Sundaram who said right
at the beginning that we should keep away from passion and
prejudice. Dr Mookerjee said that the question of linguistic
States should not be considered a party matter. I agree to
some extent but I sometimes feel that perhaps it would have
been better if it were a party matter. I shall explain myself.
It is not that I want things to become party matters but a
party matter, at any rate, does cut across provincial feelings.
It may be good or bad but a party would not consider any
question on a provincial basis. Well, this pai ticular question

Speech in the House of the People, New Delhi, July 7, 1952

34

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

is, in the very nature of things, a provincial one. When there
is division or friction between representatives of different
provinces, I think it is much worse than any party divisions.

An hon. Member — one of the noted poets we have in
this House — referred to the old British policy of divide and
rule. He seemed to hint that in the matter of linguistic
provinces, the policy of the present Government is a
continuation of that policy. Whatever one’s views on this
question may be, I must confess that I fail to understand how
our policy can be construed as one of divide and rule.

Repeated references have been made to the policy the
Congress adopted for a number of years. An hon. Member
said that I used to go around shouting about linguistic
provinces from the house tops and at street corners. I am
not aware of having done so at all. In fact, I have never been
very enthusiastic about linguistic provinces. My views on
our provinces are peculiar. Coming, as I do, from the biggest
of India’s provinces, I feel that provinces in this country
should be much smaller than they are. It is not necessary to
have the whole paraphernalia of a Governor, a High Court
and so on for every' province. But mine was a lone voice
even when the Constituent Assembly was considering this
matter. We were so used to existing conditions that we were
satisfied to let things continue as they were.

Everybody knows that about thirty years ago the
Congress stood for linguistic provinces. Seven years ago, the
Congress, in its election manifesto of 1 945-1946, said: "It
(the Congress) has also stood for the freedom of each group
and territorial area within the nation to develop its own life
and culture within the larger framework and it is stated
that for this purpose such territorial areas or provinces should
be constituted, as far as possible, on a linguistic and cultural
basis.’’

The latest position is embodied in the election manifesto
of the last General Election drawn up at Bangalore. I shall,
if I may, read that out: “The demand for a redistribution
of provinces on a linguistic basis has been persistently made
in the South and West of India. The Congress expressed itself
in favour of linguistic provinces many years ago. A decision

LINGUISTIC STATES

ss

Iff??®/*

on this question ultimately depends upon the wishes of the
people concerned. While linguistic reasons have undoubtedly
a certain cultural and other importance, there are other
factors also, such as economic, administrative and financial,
which have to be taken into consideration. Where such a
demand represents the agreed views of the people concerned,
the necessary steps prescribed by the Constitution, including
the appointment of a Boundary Commission, should be
taken.”

That more or less represents the policy and the position
of Government in this matter.

In regard to the Andhra province, for instance, hon.
Members have suggested a plebiscite. I entirely agree that
95 to 97 per cent of the people concerned would .ote for it.
But that does not solve my difficulties. I am al* in favour
of the Andhra province. But what will happen if you take
the votes of the Andhras and the Tamili ans and others in a
contioversial place like Madras city? Then you won’t get
90 per cent this way or that. It is quite obvious that the
Andhras will vote en bloc for the Andhra province on
principle; and rightly so. Similarly, if you take the votes of
large numbers of our friends on the Karnataka question
they will vote for the Karnataka province. I have no doubt
about that. That goes for the Maharashtrians too. If they
did not or if it was expected that they would not vote in this
manner, the question of our discussion would not arise. So,
we proceed on the assumption that considerable numbers of
people in certain areas desire linguistic provinces. That is
perhaps too limited a phrase. What they really want is a
province where their language, more or less, prevails.

Speaking for myself, I have been overburdened with the
thought that we must give the topmost priority to the
development of a sense of unity in India because these are
critical days. Any decision that might come in the way of that
unity should be delayed till we have laid a strong foundation
for it. Because of that, I for my own part have frankly — and
I should be quite frank with this House — not taken any
aggressive or positive step in regard to the formation of
linguistic provinces. Although I agreed with the demand, I

38

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

left it at that in many cases. If there is general consent, well
and good. We will form an Andhra province and are pre-
pared to do so. Towards the end of 1949 we had practically
decided to have an Andhra province, because most matters
had been settled by the Tamil people, the Andhras and others
concerned. I think a specially formed Committee and the
Local Government had worked together for the settlement
of these matters. However, we suddenly found that two or
three very vital matters were not settled. We as a government
were perfectly agreeable to a separate Andhra State. But
nothing could be done about it as conflicts arose at the last
moment. So, for the last two and a half years or so we have
been on the verge of finalizing matters but something or the
other kept happening, outside our competence to delay it. I
have no doubt at all in my mind — taking an individual case
like the Andhra province — that there is a great deal of justi-
fication for it. It is bound to come and I am sure that the
Andhras want it. And that really is the final justification for it.

But when we get into difficulties about the city of Madras
or Rayalaseema — and I am not mentioning this just to create
difficulties — what are we to do? We can only follow one of
the two courses. The first is to create a better atmosphere and
try to encourage a settlement by consent. The other is to
come down with a heavy hand and overrule this party or that
and lay down our own terms. The second can be done.
Governments have done it. But hon. Members will, no doubt,
realize that in a matter of this kind strong feelings are roused.
If we were to make a new province by some coercive method,
we would be leaving behind a trail of intense bitterness
between the two provinces that used to be one and were
forcibly divided. It would not be good for either of them to
start with an inheritance of ill-will and bitterness against
their neighbours just when they are starting from scratch
and have to settle down to build themselves anew. There-
fore, it is infinitely better, even though it takes a little more
time, to form linguistic provinces only when the goodwill
and consent of all concerned are forthcoming.

That was our general approach. And I submit that it is
the right approach, because it will ultimately save more

LINGUISTIC STATES

37

time than trying to rush things in a manner which might
entangle us in long arguments for years. After all, even the
simplest of partitions brings with it problems and all kinds of
difficulties, administrative, financial and other. The separa-
tion of Burma was, of course, very different. It was complete
in every way and had our goodwill. There was no conflict in
it. Still, it took ten years or so to work itself out and the
process is not quite complete even today. The other terrible
partitions in this country have undoubtedly made many of
us hesitant about changing the map of India. I admit that it
is necessary in some cases and, where it is necessary, let us
change it by all means. But the resolution that has been put
forward seems to me completely unacceptable and as it is
worded, quite objectionable. It is all very well for out friends
from Andhra or Maharashtra or Kerala or Karnataka to put
forward a definite proposal which could be considered and
then accepted or rejected. But a general proposition saying,
‘Let us take the map of India and let us re shape and cut it
up anew on the basis of language,’ is one which I submit
no reasonable person can support. It means upsetting what
you have and unsettling everything just when you are more
or less settling down somehow or other. It would be danger-
ous at any time but it is more so at a time when the world is
on the verge of a crisis. One does not know what tomorrow
or the day after might bring. For us to unsettle and uproot
the whole of India on the basis of a theoretical approach or
linguistic division seems to me an extraordinarily unwise
thing.

India has a magnificent inheritance. We, of course, want
to better that inheritance and to advance it. In doing so, we
sometimes think too parochially or provincially. I do not say
that one should never think of one’s own parish or province
but it is dangerous to have a parochial attitude to India as a
whole. To my mind, this resolution seeks to transfer the
parochial and provincial outlook to the whole of India and,
as such, I cannot support it.

My honourable friend, Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee,
spoke eloquently of West Bengal. I am sure every Member
in this House is aware that West Bengal has to shoulder

4—11 DPD/65

88

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1958

tremendous burdens as a result of the Partition and other
matters connected with it. I have no doubt that no other
State in India suffered so much. The argument advanced by
Dr Mookerjee was that some adjoining areas should be added
on to West Bengal because it had a heavy population. Now,
I am not giving an opinion. Logically or theoretically speak-
ing, that seems to be a valid argument. But you cannot
always be logical in these matters. I am quite sure that
Members from Bihar do not wholly approve of what Dr
Mookerjee has said, regardless of what party they belong
to. I shall not go into the question as to who is right.

Two or three months ago, I was in the Darjeeling area of
North Bengal and there was a deputation from the Gurkha
League demanding a Gurkha or Nepali province in North
Bengal. Now, I am quite sure Dr Mookerjee does not approve
of that. It means taking away something from the already
restricted Bengal. I might inform the House of my own reac-
tions to it. But, instead of using my own words, I shall read
out something that Sardar Patel said in the House and with
which I entirely agree. When the question of the Gurkha
province or Uttarkhand came up, his answer was: “The
Government of India consider this move of Uttarkhand in
North Bengal as unreal, misconceived and harmful to
national interests. The Government of India are determined
not to give any quarter to any agitation for the formation of
any such province and will not allow the solidarity of the
country to be disturbed by such mischievous moves.”

In this matter. Dr Mookerjee and I are in complete
agreement. My point is this: if Dr Mookerjee raised the
question of redistribution of provinces round Bengal, similar
questions will crop up not only in the west but in the north
too. One cannot envisage what will ultimately emerge from
the boiling cauldron of redistribution all over India.

It is all very well to say, ‘Decide this question this way or
that way; do not leave it undecided.’ I can understand such
an attitude in regard to a specific matter. But I do not under-
stand how a question as general as redistribution can be
decided this way or that. In fact, such things are normally
not decided this way or that way. You may lay down some

LINGUISTIC STATES

S9

general principles if you like but even principles can clash.
There is the principle of linguistic provinces. There is the
principle of economic self-sufficiency and there are financial
considerations. All these have to be balanced before a parti*
cular decision in a particular place can be taken. Normally,
no single general principle should indiscriminately be applied
to -a whole country. The present geographical structure of
India has changed very greatly in the last three or four years.
First of all, the Partition took away a considerable part of
India. The picture changed still further by the merger of a
large number of the old Indian States. Nevertheless, the
old provinces of India, roughly speaking, remain more
or less the same. That does not mean that they should not
change. Certainly, they may change but you should start
with the basis that you will not upset the status qvo. If a
particular demand is considered reasonable, you can give
effect to it. But to say that you should give effect to a parti-
cular principle all over India has no meaning.

In regard to countries like India and China, there is
always difficulty about provincialism. They are huge
countries and inevitably the various parts of the country
differ from one another — sometimes in language, sometimes
in the way of living and in many other things. In China
they have some great advantages over us. They have, at any
rate, one written language for the whole country although
the spoken language differs. Both India and China have
always had to contend against provincialism. I do not know
enough about the past history or the recent history of China
to be able to give details as to how they have dealt with this
question. But, generally speaking, they have tried to get over
provincialism by getting rid of the provinces themselves. I
believe that, besides the two or three autonomous areas like
Inner Mongolia and Tibet, China has been divided into
zones which presumably cut across the old provincial
boundaries. I merely mention this because the problem, in
regard to the provinces and their size, is much the same
here. The idea of linguistic provinces will intensify provincial
feelings and that, undoubtedly, will weaken the concept of a
united India. That is one aspect.

40

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

Another equally important aspect is that we have certain
very important languages in India. A language by itself
may be good or bad; but round that language are clustered
certain ways of living and sometimes ways of thought. It is
but right that this particular aspect of cultural manifestation
should have an opportunity for full growth.

As far as languages are concerned, I think that we should
encourage all the hill dialects of India. I am not in favour of
suppressing any language and the major languages must
certainly go ahead. The best way to encourage the growth
of a people is through the language they speak and every
State should recognize that; if the State is multilingual, it
should encourage all the different languages, whatever they
are. I do not quite see why the political boundary should
necessarily be a linguistic one. If several languages are spoken
in any particular region, they can all have an opportunity
to develop. I feel that behind the demand for linguistic
provinces there lies something a little more difficult to deal
with than the problem of languages. That something is a
feeling on the part of the people who make the demand that
they have not had a square deal, that if they were left alone
to manage their affairs they would see that they got it. I
cannot say whether there is much justification for the exis-
tence of such a feeling but the fact that it exists is not good
for us. If we still function in a narrow, provincial way,
reserving one group for our favours to the exclusion of
another, it is unfortunate. It means that, however big we
may talk, we are still limited in our outlook and do not
think or function in a national way. Having admitted that,
we must try to get over it. I should have thought that a
multilingual State like Bombay or Madras afforded greater
opportunities for growth and for developing a wider outlook
than the big leviathan of a State like Uttar Pradesh. You
will find in history and elsewhere that in some countries,
small States are forced to think in large terms. They are
forced to learn the languages of other States. Because people
living in huge States and countries become so complacent
that they do not think of people elsewhere. I do not know
why people attach so much importance to the greatness of

LINGUISTIC STATES

41

size. I suppose their preference for large areas is a relic of the
old days when a man’s income was proportionate to the size
of the land he owned. A large size does not necessarily imply
growth in any sense, even though we seem to think so. I, for
my part, would be perfectly agreeable if there were a pro-
position that Uttar Pradesh, for instance, be split up into
four provinces. However, I doubt very much if my colleagues
from Uttar Pradesh would relish that idea; on the contrary,
they would piobably like to have an additional chunk from
some other province.

Some hon. Members thought it desirable that Hyderabad
should be split up into smaller units. I think such a step
would be injurious to Hyderabad and would upset the whole
structure of South India. It would be very unwis« to do
anything that would destroy the administrative ccitinuity
that has been achieved in Hyderabad after so much effort.

We are perfectly prepared to accede to the very justifiable
demands in South India. Of course, we are not going to
re-shape India on a linguistic basis. We are, however, willing
to look into specific issues but we cannot expect that there
will be absolute unanimity in regard to them. Dr Lanka
Sundaram said that no Andhra would ever relinquish his
claim to the city of Madras. I am sure that people from the
Tamil areas will assert something to the contrary with equal
vehemence. Let the two come together and arrive at a settle-
ment. I do not suggest that we remain passive in this matter.
I am prepared to do all I can to help in a settlement but I
do not see how I can go with a flashing sword to the Tamils
or the Andhras and say, ‘You must submit to the other’s
demand.’ Even if I did that, the results would not be good
because I would leave a trail of bitter memories behind.
We talk of Vishala Andhra, of Maha Gujarat, of the
Samyukth Maharashtra and so on. A map will show that
they all overlap and presage conflict. So long as you are
discussing the principle of it, many people from Maha
Gujarat will vote for Vishala Andhra and so on. But as soon
as they look at the maps, there will be strife everywhere.
Ancient history will be quoted: ‘In the year 1,000 A.D. or
something like that, Maha Gujaiat spread right up to there’

42

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1053

or ‘the Maharashtra Empire was up to here at the time of
the Rashtrakutas.’ In their day, these ancient empires were
imperial entities constantly at war in order to conquer terri-
tory. Any talk of historical parallels inflames provincial
sentiment and inevitably leads to a desire on the part of the
State concerned to dominate over the neighbouring territory.

No agitation is necessary to convince me that the Andhra
claim is justified. I am already convinced. If you are an
Andhra, you must reason with the Tamili ans and others
concerned. I will participate in the talks if necessary. If, on
the other hand, a similar demand is made in the case of
Uttarkhand, I would strongly oppose it; I would also oppose
a Sikh province. I am not going to play about with our
frontiers in the north. But claims like those of Andhra or
Karnataka or Kerala or Maharashtra have my concurrence.
The odd thing is that the more agitation there is, the more
rigid the contending parties become. The only way to settle
disputes about linguistic provinces is to consider them in a
spirit of goodwill. A plebiscite, supposing that the States
concerned agreed to it, would not necessarily solve every-
thing. If a party wins by a narrow margin — and this is
bound to happen in most cases — a good deal of bitterness
will be created.

Professor Saha referred to the separate republics in the
Soviet Union in support of the theory of linguistic provinces
in India. The two are not really comparable, because India
is much more of a unity than the Soviet Union. The Soviet
Union is no longer a single empire but the union of a
number of entirely different countries. They have formed
a political unit and are happy about it. That is very good.
They proceeded on the basis of independent republics
federating together. Now, India cannot function on that
basis. As I said, we are a much more unified country.
If you consider Russia — not the Soviet Union — which is
more of a unified country, in relation to India, it will be a
better comparison. Large tracts of Asia, which belong to the
Soviet Union, have been added to Russia and they follow a
common policy. Even so, the practice, as a matter of fact,
is really somewhat different from the theory — I mean the

LINGUISTIC STATES

43

theory of secession. I think it is perfectly clear that no part
of the Soviet Union can secede at all. Thus, in spite of the
theoretical right of secession of the component parts, the
process of centralization has gone pretty far in the Soviet
Union.

ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AND PLANNING

THE MIDDLE WAY

I t has been a great pleasure to me to come here. I have
done so chiefly because my old friend Dr Hamied invited
me and also because I consider that the chemical industry is
a very important one. I have also come on a mission of curio-
sity and intend to find out who the chemical manufacturers
of this country are and what they are doing. I have learnt
something from Dr Hamied’s address. Of course, I do not
mean to say that I was totally unaware of their activities.
Dr Hamied’s address added a great deal to my knowledge
of what has been done or not done and also what the Govern-
ment should and should not do. He has presumably asked
me and others to appreciate and admire the work of both the
chemical manufacturers and the other private interests
engaged in industry in India.

I have no doubt that much of their work is worthy of
appreciation and occasionally some might even be worthy of
admiration. Perhaps, it might be said that they have not yet
attained the degree of perfection at which we aim and there
might be some lapses on their part. We have, nevertheless,
to look at this problem in relation to our country’s economy
and her needs. We have to keep before us the problem of how
to build or develop our economy and, in a smaller sense, our
chemical industry as well.

Looking at newspaper advertisements it seemed to me
that one of the main industries in the country was the manu-
facture of some potent and powerful pills. Being unacquaint-
ed with the taste or effect of those pills and seeing the
advertisements in the newspapers day after day, I began
to dislike intensely the people who manufactured these
things and advertised them so frequently. I may go a

Address at the annual meeting of the Indian Chemical Manufactuiers’ Asso-
ciation, New Delhi, December 26, 1950

THE MIDDLE WAY

45

step further and say that I am a very bad product of the
pharmaceutical age, because I have hardly ever taken
any medicine, pills or drugs. However, I have no doubt
that other people need these pills and I have no desire to
deprive them.

Dr Hamied has referred to some large questions. He has
laid down some excellent maxims and some extraordinary
maxims. He has stated as an obvious fact which admits of no
dispute or aigument that private enterprise and nationaliza-
tion can be equated with democracy and that totalitarianism
and nationalization are the same. It is for the first time that
I have heard such a viewpoint. I am not going to ente r into
any controveisy about this or about what he called i ie dual
policy of the Government. Obviously, he wants us cither to
plump for absolute free cntei prise or for hundred per cent
nationalization.

I am afraid Dr Hamied is out of touch with what is
happening in the world. There is no countiy in the world
where the free enterprise of his dream exists. It does not exist
even in the United States of America *\hith is the high-
priest of free enterprise. On the contrary, it becomes less and
less significant in spite of the country’s policy and its aims.
World conditions today create forces which compel a country
to progress in a cei tain direction, whether it wants to or not.

1’here are countries like Soviet Russia and some others
which fme gone a long way in creating a State which is in
complete control of industry. Everything else is also State-
controlled. Dr Hamied wants us to choose between Soviet
Russia and something which does not exist anywhere in the
world. That is a very hard choice indeed and I do not see
why I should be forced to make it. It is inevitable that those
countries, which do not want either of the two extremes,
must find a middle way. In that middle way, there is bound
to be more emphasis on some factors than on others but
obviously a middle way or a mixed economy, if you like to
call it that, is inevitable. That is not a dogma or an axiom
which can be applied to any country regardless of its condi-
tions. It will have to be decided by each country individually
with regard to its particular conditions. What may be suit-

46

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1959

able for India might not be suitable, let us say, for Burma or
Afghanistan or a country in Europe. We have to base our
actions on objective facts and our capacities. We cannot
think of this country’ in terms of what is happening in the
United States. We must take into consideration the facts that
are peculiar to and govern the situation.

The United States of America has had 150 years of
consolidation and growth and its capacity for production
today is colossal. All kinds of economic forces which have
little relationship with the old idea of capitalism are active
in that country. Of course, America is a capitalist country
and she is proud of being one. But the fact is that modern
capitalism in the United States of America is vastly different
from what it was twenty or thirty or forty years ago. It has
changed. Even economies can move in a particular direction
with a momentum of their own. I was told the other day by
some one who knows — I have no idea how far the figures are
correct — that one person in every five in the United States
of America is in some kind of State employment. That is a
prodigious number and America, mind you, is a capitalist
and not a socialist State. The fact that one person in five is
in State employment in a capitalist country shows how the
nature of the capitalist State is changing. This means that in
a country where conditions are different and where the
stresses of modern life are greater, the changes are also bound
to be of a basic nature.

In England there has also been a. considerable change. I
should like to know what the response from Parliament or
from the Government or from other people would be if Dr
Hamied’s axiom were to be stated in England. England is
obviously pursuing a socialist policy and has been pursuing
it with considerable courage during the last four or five years
since the war ended.

So, the problem is not a simple one. There are in this
world various policies, ideologies and theories. I suppose there
is some truth in each of them. However, my personal feeling
is that while it is very important to have a theory as the
logical basis of our thought, it is not reasonable to apply it
by force to all conditions. We can use a theory for the pur-

THE MIDDLE WAY

47

pose of argument and for testing its validity. In practice,
however, you have to take the facts of the situation and adapt
either yourself or your theory accordingly. Most countries
have to do it. If I may say so, even Soviet Russia which seeks
to base herself on a very hard and rigid theory of Marxism,
interprets Marxism in a manner that suits her. The result is
that her brand of Marxism has little to do with Marx. I am
quite certain that Marx would be astonished if he were to see
the various interpretations of his theory. Whether you ap-
prove of this or not is immaterial. The important point is
that Russians, in their own way, are hard realists and conti-
nue to adapt their policy to what they consider for the
moment good for their country or their party.

Coming to India, we have to consider things a. they are.
We cannot lay down any slogan or watchword ‘>nd try to
force it through to its logical conclusion Whether it is in
India or anywhere else, only those policies can succeed which
promise to deliver the goods. There are no other tests.
Broadly speaking, the present conflict is between the various
foices represented by communism on the one side and on the
other by something to which I cannot quite give a name. I
cannot call it capitalism because it has all kinds of variations.
What is really developing in the world is some kind of demo-
cratic socialism. It is developing gradually and in varying
degrees. Whatever the two conflicting forces may be, their
real test is not going to be on the battlefield. They are ulti-
mately going to be tested by the results achieved.

We should try to understand our problems in as realistic
a manner as possible, avoiding for the moment words which
have long histories behind them and which confuse the mind.
When we throw these ‘isms’ about as arguments, we get lost
Passions are aroused and the hard facts are ignored. A person
who calls himself a socialist naturally has a certain genera]
outlook and a certain set of objectives. Another person may
have quite a different point of view. If you put these two
persons together, they hurl harsh words at each other and
nothing results. If, on the other hand, they sat down together
and said, ‘Well, here is a job to be done,’ something might
result. Here in India, there is so much we want — food, cloth-

48

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1959

ing, housing, education, health — in fact, all the important
things of life. How are we to get them? Surely, not by shout-
ing slogans or passing resolutions about socialism or
capitalism or any other ‘ism’. We will have to produce the
goods and distribute them properly. We must think how best
to do it.

There is no doubL that American capitalism has an
amazing capacity for production; in fact, it is colossal. This
capacity of American capitalism was not always the same;
it has changed and has been changing. Besides, the United
States of America has had 150 years to achieve it in. It has a
territory with huge economic resources. It had opportunity
without the hampering background of conflict which other
countries had to reckon with. It had neither a heavy popula-
tion nor tire relics of a feudal age. It was a new country with
enormous space and it developed to its present level in 150
years. It is thus rather absurd to say, ‘Do what has been
done in America.’ I would like to do it in my own way but
bow can I do it? I do not have the 150 years or even 100
years to settle down in and grow as America did. I have
neither that enormous space nor that invaluable freedom
from conflict and trouble. I have neither that much time nor
the same opportunity. India is a big country with a back-
ground of all kinds of conflict. Many kinds of forces are at
play. I have got to solve my problems in the immediate
present or in the near future, not in the next hundred years.
Private enterprise in America developed gradually till it
built up for itself a very strong position with enormous
resources. Has private enterprise in India got the capacity
or the ability or the resources to do that? It has ability and
it has resources but it just has not the strength or capacity to
solve the situation by itself. It is a patent fact that you just
cannot do it. Is our private enterprise going to take up our
river valley schemes? It cannot, because they are too big
for it. These schemes cannot pay dividends quickly. We have
to wait for years and years. Therefore, the State inevitably
has to take them up. In America the railways are owned by
private companies. Here we own the railways. Are we not
told, ‘All this dislocates business. Let private enterprise have

Paul, undid by Pmident Truman on his armal in Washington. His sister , brimali
I yavilahshmi, and his daughter, Snmah Indiui Gandhi, are ah > in the picture
Bicauni> thi di^iu of Dollar o/ Jaus from fit rural
hiunhnur , (hi Pnudml of ( olumbia l m tnify

With Sr imah Jndna Gandhi nnt i in of
hu difiartun jot l idia from ih l S.A.

V thi Kftttn Dam silt in flu Damodar l olliy
Addusunq t( fumes ft am East bui^a! a l I hi Bon » atm lamp

THE MIDDLE WAY

49

full play? If private enterprise has full play, one of the first
casualties in this country will be private enterprise itself. To
be frank with you — I am talking in general terms — private
enterprise in this country is not wise enough. It may be clever
in making money but it just is not wise enough. It does not
see what is happening all round. It does not see a changing
. world in turmoil but sees it in terms of an age that is dead and
gone.

It so happens — and it amazes me — that here in India, in
spite of enormous difficulties, we have conflicts and all kinds
of unhelpful criticism and condemnation of the Government.
That very fact symbolizes a certain state of affairs in India
and an attitude in the minds of her people which i'- far from
critical. There is no doubt about it. When we talk of some-
thing critical like the food situation, for instance, we use
strong language without showing any awareness Cl the crisis.
We live our lives in the same old wa) and though large
numbers of people suffer in the country for lack of food, lack
of shelter or lack of other things, most of us, especially those
of us who criticize, lead our lives unaffected in any way. Asia
is on the verge of a crisis. In fact, the whole world is tense
with a sense of urgency but we have no such sense yeti
Unfortunately, this lightheartedness in understanding what
is happening all round us is not good because then realization
sometimes comes as a shock. We have to take the problems
of India and look at them in the context of the world. Let
us deal with them as realistically as possible, having certain
aims and objectives, trying to go towards them, adopting
our policies with a view to realizing those objectives, without
arguing so much and without having recourse to slogans or
set terms.

The only objective that you can set before you in the
modern world is a widespread raising of the people’s standard
of living. It is not the only objective but others arc subject to
it. No government can afford to ignore the urges of the
common people. After all, democracy has its basis on those
very urges and if any government flouts them, it is pushed
aside and other governments take over. They may be better
or worse. That is immaterial.

50 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

Dr Hamied, in his address, criticized heavy taxation on
the one hand and on the other called upon the Government
to provide certain urgently needed things like a synthetic
petrol plant which would cost thirty or forty crores. How
can we reduce the revenue by lessening the taxes and still
do everything that is necessary? I don’t understand. Natur-
ally, there is a limit to our capacity to do things and there
is a limit to taxation. We cannot go beyond that without
disturbing the whole structure of our economy. Important
things have certainly to be done and if enough money is
not forthcoming, those things are not done.

I should like you, gentlemen, to look at this picture and
balance things. I want you to realize that in the modern age
it is not possible to go back to the old days of a dead world.
No country in the wide world can go back to those days. If
you think in terms of going back then you are thinking in a
vacuum and that is unreal thinking. How far the State can or
should come in or how far there should be co-operation are
matters for consideration but the real test is results which
are not the accumulation of private fortunes but the advance-
ment of the public generally.

COMMUNITY PROJECTS

I t all depends on how you and I and all of us approach the
question. Is it just another of our many schemes — good
schemes, no doubt — in which we shall do our day’s work
and leave the rest to chance or is it something more than
that? Is it something which you will direct from above as
an administrator, as Development Commissioners, as a
Central Committee or as the Planning Commission and so
on, or is it something which will enable you to unleash forces
from below among our people to do the work? Forces
unleashed without definite aims and without proper co-ordi-
nation sometimes yield good results and sometimes bad. A

Speech at the Community Projects Conference, New Delhi, May 7, 1952

COMMUNITY PROJECTS

51

good lead and a good organization from the top is obviously
necessary and essential, yet it may be completely useless
unless the forces from below are released.

Sometimes, I begin to suspect and become a little afraid
of these leads from the top that we, including myself, are
always giving. We have got into the habit of doling out good
advice to the country, to our people, to everybody. Neverthe-
less, my own experience has shown that people who give too
much advice are unpopular. They are irritating. At any rate
such advice does not conduce to the good of others, as it is
intended to. That is to say, if we act too much from the top
without adequate foundations and without that intimate
relation with the lower rungs, we can hardly achieve any
great results. We will achieve something, of course. So the
problem becomes one of how to bring about a unio. of these
two elements.

Obviously, it is necessary to plan, to direct, to organize
and to co-ordinate; but it is even more necessary to create
conditions in which a spontaneous growth from below is
possible. I wonder if this Community Scheme is something
which is likely to bring about a union between the top and
the others. By the term top I do not mean that some people
are superior; I mean those who guide, the organizers; and by
others I mean the millions who will participate in the work.
In fact, ultimately there should be no top and no gradations.
Nevertheless, I feel that even the organizational lead should
not be tossed like a ball from what is the top to what might,
if you like, be called the bottom; that is to say, even the
initiative for the Community Projects should come, wherever
possible, from the people who are most affected by them.

Often, we like to sit in our chambers and decide every-
thing according to what we consider to be good for the
people. I think the people themselves should be given the
opportunity to think about it and thus they will affect our
thinking as we affect their thinking. In this way, something
much more living and integrated is produced, something in
which there is a sense of intimate partnership — intimate
partnership not in the doing of the job but in the making of
the job and the thinking of the job. It is true that those of us

52

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

or those of you who are more trained, who have given more
thought to the problem and might be considered, to some
extent, especially suited to that kind of work are better quali-
fied for thinking and giving the lead than you or I; at the
same time, it is equally true that unless those, who may not
be specialists but for whom you are working and who ulti-
mately are supposed to work for themselves, feel that mental
urge, that impact of the creative spirit within them to think
and act, they will not work in the way that we all want them
to work.

I do consider that the scheme of Community Projects is
something of very great importance and it is so not merely
because you can sum up and write down on paper the
material achievements of such a project, which I hope will
be considerable — all the additional food grown, the houses
built, schools and dispensaries, better roads, tanks, wells and
so on. You can make a list of them and it is pleasing to see
that list but somehow my mind goes beyond to the man,
woman and child. The house may be good but it is the
builder of the house that counts ultimately, not the house or
even the occupant of the house. Therefore, it is to the builder
that my mind goes; we want to make the people of India all
builders. These Community Projects appear to me to be
something of vital importance, not only in the material
achievements that they would bring about but much more
so because they seek to build up the community and the
individual and to make the latter a builder of his own village
centre and of India in the larger sense.

Now, how are you going to proceed? Naturally, not by
vague talk and discussion. One cannot have those plans
without a very great deal of careful discussion and I am
glad to say that there has been a good deal of these discussions
in the last two or three months and they have borne some
fruit already. Yet a slight fear seizes me when I see all this
planning and organization that, perhaps, we might begin
to think that this is the major part of our work. That is, we
might begin to think, as many of us are apt to do, that, sitting
in big buildings and big offices, it is we who are doing the
job. We are doing nothing of the kind. We are only indicat-

COMMUNITY PROJECTS

53

ing how the job is to be done; it is the others who will have
to do it. But, somehow, as things are, the persons who do the
job are rather diffident. How to give the initiative to the
people in these things? How to invest them with that sense
of partnership, that sense of purpose, that eagerness to do
things?

Looking into my own mind and trying to revive old
memories, I remember how at some periods of our
existence, individual and national, we did think that way,
we did feel that way and act that way. It is this sense which
adds to one’s stature. Although that kind of thing has
happened in this country, whether anything similar can
happen again in our life-time, I do not know. We may not
achieve our former standard because conditions are different.
Anyhow, 1 am of a generation that belongs more or less to
the past and cannot, therefore, speak for others — the younger
generation, who ought to feel as we did. Whether we feel
that way or not, it seems to me quite obvious that if the
tremendous task of re-building India is undertaken, it will
have to be undertaken with something much more than the
books and statistics, papers and directions and planning
and organization that we may put into it. It will have to be
undertaken with something fiery and with the spirit that
moves a nation to high endeavour. Well, can the Community
Projects be looked at that way? Perhaps, I am putting it
too high and it is dangerous to put a thing too high, because
if you do so you are liable to react the other way.

I suppose there is hardly a country — and I mean no
disrespect to other countries — which has such high ideals as
India. And I may add that there is hardly a country where
the gap between ideals and performance is so big as in India.
So, it is a dangerous thing to talk big and then not be able
to come anywhere near your objective. Nevertheless, occa-
sionally one has even to gaze at the stars even though one
may not reach them. Merely to lower your ideals because
you think they are too high is not right, even though you
might not quite achieve these ideals. How far can we take
the Community Projects out of the setting of your offices
and make them a scheme for living men and women inspired

5— U DPD/65

54

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1955

by something worth while to do? That is the problem. We
measure and calculate rightly and inevitably about the
finances and the resources involved; one has got to do it, one
cannot act irresponsibly. However, if I may say so, all these
are secondary matters. The primary matter is the human
being involved, the man who is going to work, the man who
is going to feel it and translate that feeling into action. Are
you going to try to create that type of human being? The
human being is there, of course: you have only to reach his
heart and mind. You can do that but not by doling out
advice. Take it from me, do not advise too much: do the
job yourself. That is the only advice you can give to others.
Do it and others will follow. Why do you think, it is your
business to sit in a big office and issue orders because you are
the Development Commissioner? If I may say so with all
respect, you are no good if you do that. Better go some-
where else and do some other job. Let us be clear about this.

Whether it is the Development Commissioner or the
Administrator, he must not sit in his office and issue decrees
all the time. He must take the spade and dig or do something
else. No man connected with the scheme, who merely sits in
his office, is good enough, as far as I am concerned. If you
work, you will make others work. That is the only way of
giving a lead and calling upon others to work. We are be-
coming a lazy people, especially with your hands and feet
and often enough intellectually lazy, too. I regret to say,
although it has nothing to do with our present work here,
that our university standards are going down and, if this is
not checked, I do not know how we are to make good in
anything big later. However, that is another matter.

Wherever you are, I expect that you should begin your
work every morning with a little manual effort, if possible,
in furtherance of the Community Projects. You must develop
a sense of partnership.

I do not know what our Development Commissioner or
the Administrator has done thus far in regard to the produc-
tion of leaflets, pamphlets, etc., explaining the schemes. I
have seen a pamphlet here. It is in English. It is rather
businesslike and good. I hope that such pamphlets will be

COMMUNITY PROJECTS

55

issued in the various languages of India. But much more is
required. I want this matter to be explained, not in this
businesslike way but in a more human way, so that somehow
it may catch the imagination of the people concerned. But
what is more necessary is that you, the Development
Commissioners, should function in a human way with the
people, should talk to them in a friendly way, get to know
what they want and explain to them what you propose to do,
how it is then work, how it is not something imposed upon
them and not even something that is a gift from above. You
should explain to them that it is going to be a project of
co-operative endeavour, how they will benefit by it and their
children and their children’s children. See that you get to
know them somehow, reach their minds and hearts and
invite them to work with you; not under your command but
with you, so that you gradually form some kind of brother-
hood, a fraternity of workers.

I speak, naturally, with some knowledge of my people.
I am not afraid of criticizing my people. I have just called
them lazy and all that. And yet I do believe quite honestly
that the human material we have in India is very fine and,
given the opportunity, it can achieve big things. How to
give an opportunity to this vast mass of human material —
that is the problem. You cannot suddenly give it to all,
however much you may plan for it. Of course, you must plan
for everybody. No planning which is not for all is good
enough. You must always have that view before you and
you must prepare the foundations for the next step towards
the final goal. And so, you ultimately start a process which
grows by itself. Suppose you take fifty-five Community
Projects today; you plan next year to take another hundred
or whatever the number and so on. You want the number to
grow so that in the course of five or six years you may have
from 500 10 600 or mote centres.

That itself is a tremendous thing covering, as it possibly
will, a very large proportion of our population. I was thinking
of something slightly different in addition. Take a centre in
one place comprising about a hundred villages; what you
do there in a concentrated way will percolate through to the

96

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

surrounding villages. If the work is too officialized, this will
not happen. It will never spread beyond your immediate
vision. It must not become something too rigid but be
something which has an element of spontaneous growth
within it. And that can only happen when you catch the
imagination of the people. Then it grows automatically.
There is always a danger — I am myself guilty of it often
enough — that by direction and authority we may make
a thing rigid, not flexible, making it a part of the official
hierarchy. Now, official hierarchies are, I suppose, necessary.
But with all the good they do, they have a certain deadening
influence on anything that is spontaneous or vital. Commu-
nity Projects will never grow if they are approached in that
way. You must always think of the element of spontaneity.

This kind of project will succeed or fail in the measure
that you achieve results within stated periods. There is, of
course, a certain amount of vagueness when you approach
the people but there must be precision about one thing:
about the time in which a thing must be done. That target
must be continually before you. And if you do not reach it,
well, you fail to that extent.

Really, what we are committed to is not a few community
centres but to working for the biggest community of all and
that is the community of the people of India, more especially
those who are down and out, those who are backward. There
are far too many backward people in this country. Besides
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes organiza-
tions, there is an organization called the Backward Classes
League. As a matter of fact, you can safely say that 96 per
cent of the people of India are economically very backward.
Indeed, apart from a handful of men, most of the people are
backward. Anyhow, we have to think more of those who
are more backward because we must aim at progressively
producing a measure of equality in opportunity and other
things. In the modern world today, you cannot go on for
long having big gaps between those who are at the top and
those who are at the bottom. You cannot make all men equal,
of course. But we must at least give them equality of oppor-
tunity. So, I hope that these community centres will not

HOPEFUL PROSPECTS

57

merely pick out the best and most favourable spots and
help them start but also try to work out the problems of the
other spots which are backward economically, socially and
in other respects and thus gain a wealth of experience of
various types and conditions in India, so that this tremendous
problem of backwardness may be tackled in the best and
quickest way possible.

HOPEFUL PROSPECTS

I am speaking to you over the radio after a long time and
there are many things that I should like to talk about, for
much has happened during this interval. But today I shall
speak to you chiefly about our food situation. I should have
preferred to do so a week or two later when, perhaps, I
could have given you more facts. Our Food Minister,
Shri Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, is touring the States in order to
confer with the State Ministers, to take personal stock of the
situation and to decide with their co-operation what steps to
take. He has not yet finished his survey of the situation and
so I cannot, for the present, talk to you in detail. However,
since I had fixed tonight for my broadcast, I kept to it. Even
though I shall not give you much new information today, I
should like to talk to you about our common problems,
because it is very necessary that there should be a close
understanding between the people of this great country and
the Government they have elected.

For many years we have had to face tremendous
difficulties in the matter of food. The last Great War, the
Partition of India, overwhelming natural disasters in the
shape of earthquakes, floods and drought and the growing
population created a heavy deficit of food in the country.
Food is after all a primary necessity and if we fail in feeding
our people adequately, we can make little progress in other
directions.

Broadcast from All India Radio, Delhi, June 14, 1958

58

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1955

We had to import large quantities of foodgrains — wheat
and rice and milo — at enormous expense. We have struggled
against famine and scarcity in many parts of India and even
in recent months we have had very difficult conditions in
Rayalaseema, parts of Mysore, the Sunderbans area in
Bengal, eastern Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Saurashtra, the
Hissar District in the Punjab and Ajmer. In some parts of
India it has been difficult to get even drinking water.

Some districts of Madras, such as Rayalaseema, had
been particulaily unfoitunate. They had severe drought for
four successive years. We sent our army for relief work and,
from all accounts, they did a very good job of it, indeed. They
demonstrated that they were just as good in serving the
people in a civil capacity as in a military one. Even as we
grappled with the difficult situation in Rayalaseema, bounte-
ous rain fell from the heavens and broke a long spell. For
Rayalaseema, it was literally a blessing. Let us hope it is the
end of the ill-luck we have been having in the country for the
last four years.

We have tried, to the best of our ability, to give relief by
productive works, by deepening wells and boring new ones,
by desilting tanks, by authorizing agricultural loans and
remissions of land levenue and by the distribution of free
food, when needed.

In spite of our manifold difficulties there seems to be a
change for the better in the food situation. For the first time
we have large stocks of foodgrains; prices have generally
gone down, except for those of the imported grains. Our
slock position is satisfactory fen - the present and, to that
extent, is some insurance against future mishap. We started
the year with a stock of IB. 3 lakh tons of foodgrains. At
present we hold a stock of more than 36 lakh tons, of which
a little over 3.5 lakh tons is held directly by the Centre. The
wheat harvest is good and our procurement this year has
been better than it was last year. More foodgrains are being
imported from abroad. There is plenty of wheat and milo in
the country. There is not quite enough rice but we are making
special efforts to get it in larger quantities.

Prices of locally produced foodgrains have gone down

HOPEFUL PROSPECTS

but unfortunately we have had to pay heavily for imported
grains and thus the pool rate of supplies to the States had to
be increased. Great distress was caused when the Central
subsidy on foodgrains was withdrawn, though special relief
was given in regard to milo and in some other ways. The
distress, however, led to a more correct appraisal of our food
situation for the first time. At the beginning of the year, the
States asked us to import over seven million tons of food-
grains, a quantity which, besides being quite impossible for
us to import, was not available in the markets of the world.
The quantity was reduced to five million tons after some
argument. Later we reduced it still further to four million
tons. Anyhow, now we know what exactly our needs are and
since we have a large stock of our own, it is well within our
competence to supply those needs. Therefore, the future is
hopeful. Prices are going down and the Central Government
is taking steps to reduce the pool prices of wheat and milo all
over the country.

This is the background of the food situation and it seems
to me satisfactory. But we have to be wary. We cannot afford
to grow complacent or relax our vigilance. We have always
to be prepared for every contingency whether it is due to
drought or to the activities of anti-social people or to parti-
cular conditions in the world.

We have often been criticized for having a policy of
controls but we are convinced that any relaxation at this
stage will involve grave risks. We dare not risk another rise
in prices because it will bring misfortune in its trail. There-
fore, in spite of criticism, we have continued to follow a
general policy of control.

We have made an exception in the case of Madras State
where controls have been removed for the moment. The
whole State has been divided up into six zones, five of which
are more or less self-sufficient in regard to food; the sixth, com-
prising Malabar and the Nilgiris, has a heavy deficit. There is
to be free movement within each zone but there will be cer-
tain barriers between any two zones. We shall make special
arrangements to supply food to Malabar and the Nilgiris
and have fair price shops in the other zones so as to check

60

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

high prices. A ration of five ounces of rice will be provided
for the present holders of ration cards. There will also be a
free market where foodgrains of any kind can be purchased.

Conditions were peculiarly favourable for such a step in
Madras. Madras has a stock of rice which will last her for
more than a year if we calculate on the basis of the present
quota of rations; there is a large quantity of wheat and milo
in addition. Prices in the free market are low. These being
the conditions, the recent changes in Madras involved hardly
any risk. We have insured ourselves against such risk as
there may be by opening Government Fair Price Shops
which will control prices. Our administrative machinery in
Madras will be kept in readiness. Any untoward develop-
ment can thus be immediately controlled. I hope and believe
that the steps we have taken in Madras will prove successful
and that it will not be necessary to revert to a stricter system
of controls.

I shall not say much about the other States now because
we are still considering their problems. It should be under-
stood that we do not propose to abandon controls or
procurement, though our manner of procurement may vary.
Where conditions are favourable and risks negligible, we
shall relax barriers and permit freer movement of foodgrains.
We want to remove irksome restrictions as far as possible
and offer an incentive to producers to grow more.

Now is the time for all of us — Central and State Govern-
ments, producers, distributors and consumers-— to co-operate
in solving the food problem which has been a menace to us
for many years. The solution may take some time but we
can go a long way towards it. if we try hard enough. It is
essential to produce more and prevent hoarding. Procurement
must be made easy and prices must be kept down.

There are many ways of increasing food production;
more land can be brought under cultivation; more water
can be supplied by irrigation or otherwise; and there can be
more intensive cultivation. State Governments all over India
have undertaken schemes for this purpose. Perhaps the most
important of the methods of increased production is more
intensive cultivation. If we increase the yield per acre even

HOPEFUL PROSPECTS

61

by a little, the total increase will be considerable. Our yield
at present is very poor and there is no reason why we should
not increase it as other countries have done. Our farmers are
hardworking but sometimes they lack good seed or good
manure or something else that is necessary. The Govern-
ments will certainly help them but ultimate success can only
come - through self-help or, better still, through the co-opera-
tives of farmers working together for their common good.

Over two years ago, the Government of India introduced
a Crop Competition Scheme on a countrywide scale in order
to increase food production. We are now having our crop
competition fortnight for this half year. This competition
has already yielded very fine results and prizes for the highest
yield in the village or mandal or district or State have been
awarded to several farmers. Three crops were originally
selected for competition, namely, wheat, paddy and
potatoes. This year gram, jowar and bajra have also been
included.

We want these competitions to be held in every village
under the organization of the Gram Panchayat or the
Agricultural Development Committee or Co-operative
Societies. The prizes for wheat go up to Rs. 500. A tractor
costing Rs. 7,000 will be the all-India prize. A diesel engine
will be given for the biggest yield in paddy. Those who win
prizes will be awarded certificates of merit along with the
title of Krishi Pandit.

The results obtained in these competitions so far have
been remarkable. In Uttar Pradesh, the highest yield for
wheat per acre has been over 59 maunds and over 726
maunds for potatoes. For paddy, the figure is over 73 maunds
in West Bengal and 146 maunds in Madras.

These figures show what we can do if we make up our
minds to do it. Even if these figures are exceptional, the
average is bound to go up and only a ten per cent increase in
our average yield will solve all our food problems.

I consider these crop competitions very important and
I hope they will spread to every village in India. In Uttar
Pradesh, there are 60,000 competitors this year. It is hoped
that there will be over 9 lakhs of competitors for the next

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

competition this year. But this is not enough. We want every
farmer to enlist and to take part in these competitions.

I hope what I have told you will indicate that we are
turning the corner in regard to food production and that
the prospects are certainly hopeful. But everything depends
upon our own efforts and our will to achieve. Given that will,
success is certain, even though ill fortune may sometimes
attend our efforts. I hope, therefore, that you will under-
take this task with earnestness, strength of will and the prayer
that good fortune be yours.

Before I conclude, may I offer you my grateful thanks
for the innumerable messages of greeting and goodwill that
came to me on my assumption, for the second time, of the
high office of Prime Minister? Vast numbers of friends and
comrades, known and unknown, from all over the country
sent these heartening messages and I felt infinitely grateful
and very humble on receipt of this high token of your affec-
tion and goodwill. May I be worthy of it and may our
beloved motherland advance and prosper by our service and
our joint efforts.

THE DIGNITY OF LABOUR

T am glad to be present at this Sammclan. It will be out of
place lo talk of revolution here. It has become almost a
habit with us to repeat old grievances and narrate old tales. I
do not mean that we should not persist in righting wrongs, old
though they be; but we must, at the same time, be alert and
keep our heads on our shoulders. This country belongs to all
of us. Before we attained independence our main object was
to drive the foreigners out of this land. We talked of social
and economic reforms then, too, but our struggle at that
time was mainly political.

After the attainment of Swaraj , economic and social

Translated from speech in Hindi at the inauguration of the Harijan Conven-
tion, Wardha, November 1, 1952

THE DIGNITY OF LABOUR

63

problems have begun to loom large before us. There may be
differences of opinion about these problems but the question
is how to solve them. We talk of Gandhivad and other vads
or ‘isms’ but our chief defect is that we are more given to
talking about things than to doing them. We seem to think
that social and economic reforms can be achieved merely by
resolutions or legislations.

You ought to give thought to your problems but I would
ask you to broaden your vision and think of India, of Bharat
Mata, as a whole. Who is Bharat Mata? It is you — the
janata and the question before us is how to raise the economic
standard of the nation.

Giving government jobs to a few people will not solve
the problem of the crores of Indians who are unemployed.
It is not possible for the Government to find employment
for everybody. If unqualified people are employed, the
country will suffer. Let all those who are engaged in an
occupation do their job well, for production is proportionate
to the work done. The prosperity of a nation depends on its
capacity for production and on a rational distribution of
wealth. In order to ensure the latter, we must get rid of all
the present bottle-necks.

A revolution cannot increase our wealth, which really
calls for hard work. After the revolution of 1917, the Russians
had to work tremendously hard before they could reach
their present position. They had their Five Year Plans and
laboured with diligence and patience for them. The people
gladly endured hardship and suffering so that the founda-
tion of their Republic may be true and strong. The Russian
Revolution took place 35 years ago and it is only now that
the people are beginning to gather the fruit of their labours.
For the first decade, they had to work hard and suffer
even more than they did under the old regime; but they had
courage and confidence. Revolution can remove an old
regime but it cannot make a nation wealthy overnight. To
improve their lot, the Russians toiled and sweated and have
now come into their own.

From Socialist Russia to Capitalist America is a far cry.
It is true that America is two and a half times as big as India

64

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

but the ratio of American production is far higher than ours.
They have devised means of increasing their wealth. The
average income of a working man is about a thousand rupees
a month. The American people recognize the dignity of
labour. Even the sons of the rich earn their living while
they learn. They think it derogatory to live on the earnings
of others.

We have got to change our mentality. At present we are
apt to look down on manual labour and that tendency is
responsible for our present plight. There are two kinds of
unemployment in our country — there are people who do not
find work and there arc those who are not willing to work.
During my recent tour of Assam I came across a young girl,
who was carrying a load of fire-wood on her head. I stopped
and spoke to her. I was surprised because she spoke perfect
English. She had been educated in England. Her parents
had lost their all in Pakistan and were reduced to penury.
In spite of her background, she did not hesitate to do manual
work. The most important thing is the will to work. The
prosperity of a nation is judged by the number of people
who are employed. Unemployment is the bane of a
nation.

I shall now come to an important social problem. It
cannot be gainsaid that the Harijans have been oppressed
for ages. Certain cruel customs have sprung up and they
cannot be eradicated merely by legislation. Even so, I am
sure that the present world conditions a.re bound, sooner or
later, to bring about a basic change in the situation. If we
want to prosper as a nation, we must put a premium on
efficiency and competence and, therefore, only those who are
competent should be given employment in the Government.
Nepotism, favouritism or reservation will lower the standard
of government work. It worries me to find our standard of
efficiency falling. It will be dangerous to allow this state of
affairs to continue, because in the next four or five years new
responsibilities will devolve on us.

It is wrong to think the government services are there to
maintain the people. In advanced countries, it is no honour
to be a government servant. It is only in backward countries,

THE IMAGINATIVE APPROACH

65

where there is a great deal of unemployment, that govern-
ment services are given undue importance.

The test of competency is not merely a university degree.
Our greatest responsibility today is to give every child — boy
or girl — equal opportunity. My heart saddens when I see
our young children going about half naked, half starved. It
is our duty to supply them with proper nourishment and
clothing. We have a glorious past and our history goes back
thousands of years; but our civilization had its evils also,
the caste system not the least of them. We must draw lessons
from our past and rise to new heights.

THE IMAGINATIVE APPROACH

T am happy to be present here today not only because the
subject with which you deal is important but also to pay a
tribute to the work done by Indian engineers. The words
‘Irrigation and Power’ excite my mind and all kinds of ideas
come to me — ideas of history and long perspective of human
progress. I do not know what kind of history books are
written for schools nowadays. The kind of history that really
counts does not merely present the names of kings and big
individuals but traces the progress as also the occasional
set-backs of humanity. The biggest development in the
history of humanity was, I suppose, the discovery of agri-
culture. Irrigation came later. I think it would be a fascinat-
ing study to find out how the development of irrigation has
affected human progress. That would naturally mean going
into the development of various techniques and devices that
have affected agriculture and finally coming to the latest
techniques and the latest uses of power.

There are the themes overriding the so-called national
conflicts which affect the whole human race. In spite of the
fact that there has been so much development in the applica-

Speech at the Silver Jubilee celebrations of the Central Board of Irrigation
and Power, New Delhi, November 17, 1952

66 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

tion of science, our minds remain narrow and limited and
cannot get over the narrow boundaries, not only of
geography but what is much worse, of the mind. The subject
of irrigation and power, as I said, excites me and is full of
adventure for me. When I look at the map of India in my
office — and I look at it very often — -it stares me in the face.
It is a huge map with marked physical features. That mighty
chain of mountains in the north and north-east, called the
Himalayas, is given a particular colour. I often think that
not only is this great mountain chain a boundary and a
frontier of India rising like a great sentinel, inspiring so much
of our culture and thought through the ages but that this
mighty chain is also an untapped source of vast energy.
The energy flows out in great rivers, watering the plains of
India, running into the sea and forming minerals and the
rest of it. If only we could utilize this mighty reservoir of
energy to full purpose, what could we not do with it? Since
it has to do with human progress, this subject is full of
adventure and excitement for me and I should like you to
consider it in the same way, because you thereby give life
to something that is otherwise dull and dry.

Now, as a politician and as one who meddles in many
other things not directly connected with politics, I have to
deal with very difficult material. You can measure with
your techniques and rules the hardness or the strength of this
metal or that, of stone and iron and so on but how do you
measure the content of a human individual? A politician
in the real sense of the word has to deal with human beings
as material and not with stones and steel and iron and the
like. Human material is not only a difficult material but also
an exciting material because it is a live, growing, changing
and dynamic thing. No two persons are alike and we have to
build with that material! If you deal with stones and cement
and steel and iron in a dead way without any feeling of build-
ing life or something that is akin to life, then you are second-
rate men. You have not grasped the problem; you are just
people sitting down at a table with pen and ink writing
down figures and calculations, which may, of course, be
useful, but you have lost the essence and meaning of the

THE IMAGINATIVE APPROACH

67

work you are doing. That applies to every politician and to
every profession. It applies more especially to those of us
who, like me, inexorably grow in years. We grow static in
mind and it is extraordinarily difficult to prevent it. One
loses the resilience of mind which is a necessary concomitant
of life. When that resilience goes, then a person begins to
recite' pet phrases and pet dogmas, whether it has to do with
religion or science or any other branch of human activity.
These pet phrases are characteristic of a mind that is dead
and has lost the capacity for growth. I find a great deal of
this narrow-mindedness. When a man says: ‘We have the
truth, you have not. We know this, you do not,’ then I
suspect him. I feel that he has lost touch with something
that was growing, that he has got left behind.

The point I want you to appreciate is that even the work
you do here should be infused with adventure, life and the
things that come out of life. When you are building a bridge
it signifies infinitely more than just a bridge. When you are
working for a river valley scheme, for instance, you must
also see the other vast things that flow from it besides canals
and irrigation and hydro-electric works and industry and
all that. There is something even more important than these,
and that is, the progress of humanity in a particular direc-
tion. If your imagination is fired by an idea or a problem,
then the work that you do will be vital whether you do it as
a chief engineer or a small engineer, a mechanic or even as
an unskilled labourer. It is sad that imagination counts for
so little today and we work in grooves. I suppose, too much
imagination would lead us astray and we do have to keep
our feet on the ground. Nevertheless, too little of it is also a
handicap. I find that one could do with a good deal more of
imaginative approach here in this city of New Delhi. A man
who sits cooped up in an office becomes static and a dead-
weight. If I may make a personal confession, that is why I
occasionally want to run away from New Delhi and rush
about from place to place. I want to escape from the deadly
static atmosphere of paper and files and ink in which one
forgets that there are human beings in India. We consider
figures but figures are no human beings; figures are only

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

hints or some suggestions as to what human beings are. Well,
I get out and I see the faces of my people and your people
and derive from them inspiration and what is much more
important, something dynamic and growing. I grow with
them and to some extent get in tune with them. I hope, I
also affect, to some extent, the mood and tune of their minds.
Whatever capacity you may work in, I am quite sure, you
will deteriorate, unless you go down to the field and do the
job yourself and unless you refuse to consider any job too
low for you. You have to maintain a direct contact with the
living thing that you are building. A bridge is a living thing
if you look at it imaginatively; everything is living if only
you look at it with the eye of imagination and are alive to
what the thing is and what it means to humanity. It is part
of human life and human progress. Engineers, therefore, are,
normally speaking, fortunate, because they have to work
in the field which an average person sitting in an office does
not have a chance to do.

Our ideas of education which are very slowly being
given effect to — I wish the pace was faster — revolve round
this so-called basic education. There are many virtues in
basic education; but the main thing is that you really get
down to something and not just repeat things from a book.
You get even the smallest child to do something. Of course,
there is nothing specially Indian about it. Modern education
is like that everywhere. In India, a certain trend has been
given to it, notably by Mahatmaji. The idea is to get down
to the job with your hands and feet and not talk about it.
I am tired of people who merely talk about things. How-
ever wise you may be, you can never enter into the spirit of
a thing if you only talk about it and do nothing. Even
scientists have a tendency to let a wonderful experiment
remain an experiment once it has been performed. The
next stage somehow does not come. They may well say that
the next stage is somebody else’s job but I think, if the
scientist had a sense of practical application, he would either
try to do it himself or get somebody else to do it. This asso-
ciation of thought with action is, I think, of utmost
importance. Thought without action is an abortion; action

THE IMAGINATIVE APPROACH

without thought is folly. They must always be allied, what-
ever we may do. As I said before, they are normally allied in
an engineer and, therefore, he perhaps keeps fresher than
others do. Also, the engineer is actually building; he is not
planning for others to build. There is some value in making
plans, of course; it has to be done but the man who does the
job in the field is actually creating something and there is
nothing like creative activity for the growth of the individual
and the community.

As I said, you engineers are fortunate; but you are fortu-
nate only if you realize your good fortune and live up to it.
If you also become static under the enervating atmosphere of
New Delhi or wherever you live, then so much the worse for
you. However high your intellectual attainments might be,
you will lose the living touch and it is the living touch that
counts in life, whatever you may or may not do.

I confess I was very much surprised to learn that samples
of some materials had been sent for testing to distant
countries. Of course, it may be that a particular object
sometimes has to be sent abroad but to adopt such a proce-
dure in the normal course seems to me an amazing confession
of our weakness and inability to do anything. If you have to
get things tested abroad, what are these dozens of laboratories
and all these scientific and research institutes here for? I
think this matter should be looked into.

If I may take this matter a little further, I am not at all
enamoured and as the days go by I become more and more
suspicious of the crowds of people who go out of India for
so-called education. Undoubtedly, there has been some
change in this state of affairs since the days when I went
abroad. At that time, a great majority of Indian students
used to go to the United Kingdom in the hope of adorning
the profession of law subsequently. Well, some of them did;
most of them did not. Now people go mostly for technical
studies, and this of course is infinitely better. Such informa-
tion as I have, goes to show that most Indian students in
England and America do well in their work. I have nothing
against that. In every matter, be it education, science,
culture or anything else, I dislike nothing so much as the

6—11 DPD/65

70

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

narrowly nationalistic approach which makes us think that
we have attained the summit of wisdom and that we need
not learn anything more. That kind of attitude denotes a
static condition. And anything that is static becomes stagnant
and gradually leads to death. I am all for opening our minds
to every kind of knowledge or information that can be
obtained. I am all for free intercourse with the rest of the
world; I am all for inviting people from other countries to
come here to learn from us and to teach us. I want no
barriers. Therefore, it is not with a view to having a barrier
that I say what I am going to say.

I have explained what my basic position is. Even so, I
feel surprised at this excessive enthusiasm to rush abroad to
learn something. It is, indeed, amazing how many people
are constantly going abroad. I am not talking, for the
moment, of students. That is quite another matter. Students
should certainly go but I shall qualify that by saying that
they should go only if they are capable of profiting by it and
that not everybody whose parents have superfluous cash need
go. I am talking for the present of people other than students.
During the last two or three years, there has been such an
abundance of all kinds of scholarships, fellowships, this, that
and the other that I have lost count of them. We became
rather alarmed at the large numbers of people who went
abroad. This included a very large number of officials of
the Government of India and State Governments who,
instead of doing their jobs, were constantly trying to learn
something from abroad. This desire was no doubt laudable.
We tried to make a rule so that nobody in government
service could go without special reference to the Cabinet
itself. The result of that rule was that half the work of the
Cabinet was to consider these applications! It is amazing.
The other day, I had a chart prepared to show how many
officials had gone abroad in the course of one year. It
astonished me to see the number which ran into many
hundreds. I agree that we should aim at higher efficiency and
that our officials should go and learn. What disturbs me is
the scale at which this has happened because of these
scholarships and fellowships and things like that. There is a

THE IMAGINATIVE APPROACH

71

tendency to accept these scholarships too readily, because
people feel that the United Nations or the FAO or some other
organization is paying for them. They do not realize that
payments are never made for nothing. In fact, a good part
of the expense does fall on us. We also lose the services of a
highly paid man for a period. What do we pay him for?

There is yet another aspect to this problem — and this
applies to students as well as to others who go abroad. We
do want to learn the highest technique and to make our
people as efficient as anybody else in the world. But we should
like them to be efficient and yet to fit into the scheme of
things in India. Obviously, the highest type of efficiency is
that which can utilize existing material to the best advantage.
If a person has to work in India as an Indian mus f , then he
must know how to work in India. It is no good if a man
comes back from America and tells me, ‘I will do this and
that if you get this and that equipment from America.’ When
expensive machinery of all kinds which we have not got,
which we cannot afford to get is not available, he bemoans
his lot — ‘How backward we are, we cannot do this, we have
not got this and we have not got that.’ He becomes frustrated
and the very special knowledge that he has obtained is of
little use to us because his mind has somehow been adapted
to a different environment. That environment may be very
good but it so happens that our environment is different.
The result is that we can derive no profit from the expendi-
ture of so much time, energy and money on the education
of a student or an official. You have to function in India with
the material and environment of India and you have to
make that go as far as possible. Certainly we shall get equip-
ment and machinery from abroad where needed but it
should only come when it is absolutely necessary. As far as
possible, it should only come once and we should then
produce it ourselves. There is no point in putting up magni-
ficent structures with the aid of foreign equipment. They
will be just showcases that do not fit into the general scope
of the development of India.

I entirely agree with what the President said about the
far greater importance of developing our smaller valley

72

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

systems. It is true that to a large extent we have to go in for
enormous undertakings but our emphasis should be on
developing India as a whole. We are not out to develop one
little part of it more than the rest. The more we spread out
the development, the better it is. Of course, everything has
ultimately to be judged by the general progress, development
and advancement of the human beings involved, not by a
show-structure put up for others to see so that you may be
able to show off your skill. I do not mean that we should
not experiment or go ahead with specialized things. We
must do that also, otherwise we cannot progress and our
levels remain low.

There is, however, one difficulty. If you look at the
political field or the economic field or any other field, you
find two slightly contradictory tendencies. One is the
tendency to centralize. Now, centralization is inevitable in
the modern world, whether it is governmental or of any
other kind. It may give you better results, it may develop
better efficiency and all the rest of it, although a stage arrives
in the progress of centralization when perhaps efficiency does
not grow but lessens. The other tendency is, shall I say, the
growth of individual, human freedom. Undoubtedly, the
greater the centralization, the less the individual freedom,
even though the results obtained might be better. Some
people prefer the processes of decentralization because they
allow the individual to grow more. On the other hand,
there are certain very important things in modern life which
cannot be decentralized if you want any progress at all. Well,
you have got to balance all these things but the main thing
is that the growth of the individual human being or group
cannot be imposed. A human being grows and ought to grow
like a flower or a plant. You cannot pull it out; you can water
it, you can help it grow; you can give it good soil; you can
put it in the fresh air or in the sun. But it has to grow itself;
you cannot make it grow by force. Many of our people
sometimes think that you could make something grow by
some decree from above but you cannot.

I do not know if I have talked relevantly or not about
irrigation and power. But being somewhat imaginatively

THE IMAGINATIVE APPROACH 7S

inclined, my mind runs oS in various directions. I was talking
to you about the effect the map of India with the Himalayas
produced on me. I thought of the tremendous source of
power, often enough running to waste and of the potential
energy which is there for you to tap. I wonder if ever there
will be somebody wise enough and knowledgeable enough
• to write the story of our rivers. What a wonderful story they
would make! Let us take the story of the Ganga. It will be
the story of India and more especially of North India. It
will be far more important, far more living and real than all
the trumpery history books that you have. It will be the
story of the growth of Indian culture and civilization; it will
be the story of the great cities on the Ganga; it w ; ll be the
story of the Gangetic valley and the water of the Ganga
helping irrigation and so on; it will be the story of the rise
and fall of empires; it will be the story of the development
of human life, of people, Aryans as well as other races,
coming down from the north-western frontier to the broad
plains of India right up to the Ganga. It will be a magni-
ficent story if it could be written properly. Of course, it is
not the engineer’s job to write it but I want the engineer
who works on these rivers to have an imaginative approach
to his work. Then the water he deals with will become alive.
Even the stones will tell a story. I should like, not only the
big engineer or the middling engineer but also the small
engineer to think in this way and to convey something of
this exciting approach to the worker in the field. Make him
realize that he is also working with live material, even though
it might be stone or steel and that it will give birth to further
life. Let him be a partner in this adventure that you are
starting. If you approach your problems in this spirit, the
results will ultimately be far speedier and other results will
also follow. In the process, the worker and the engineer will
also progress and advance and become better men and
women.

NO CHANGE IN FOOD POLICY

I have hesitated to intervene in this debate because I wanted
hon. Members to have as much time as possible to discuss
this most important matter. Later, my colleague, the Food
Minister, will reply to this debate fully. My colleague, the
Finance Minister, gave a very lucid analysis of the situation
yesterday and made clear the basic policy not only of the
Government but also on behalf of the Planning Commission
— not that the two are separate or in opposition — and he
spoke with authority since he has a great deal to do with the
burdens of both. Yet I want to say a few words, because
recently there has been some confusion in the public mind
and many things have been said which appear to me to have
no justification whatever. Newspapers have splashed big
headlines, leading the public to imagine things that did not
exist. I wish to clear the confusion as far as possible.

The hon. Member who asked me earlier' in this session
whether there would be a debate on food policy was
probably under the impression that some big changes were
under consideration. As a matter of fact, a change in policy
was neither intended nor suggested. Certain minor changes
are certainly contemplated; but they have nothing to do with
the basic policy that the Government has attempted to follow
and intends to pursue in future.

I am sure the House will realize that during the last few
years the Food Ministry has had to face very difficult
problems. The Government and the Cabinet have, of course,
shared to some extent in carrying the burdens of the Food
Ministry but the person who was ultimately responsible was
the Food Minister in office. I am not denying that we have
made mistakes but we have also endeavoured to profit by
them. It must be conceded that the food situation in the
country, which was difficult for a long time, has now
considerably eased. Although other factors have contributed
to the improvement, I think we are justified in saying that the
present favourable situation is, to some extent, the result of

Speech in the House of the People, New Delhi, November 18, 1952

NO CHANGE IN FOOD POLICY

75

Government policy also. In this connection I should like to
pay tribute to my colleague, the Food Minister, who has
approached the very difficult and complicated subject of
food with an energy and an awareness which, I think, have
produced certain positive results all over the country.

The House has already had a fair dose of figures and
•details, so I shall not go into them. But it is essential that we
do not miss the wood for the trees. In a debate of this kind,
it is natural that hon. Members should be more concerned
with the situation in their particular State or area: and it is
right that they should do so. Nevertheless, the most important
thing is that we keep in view India and her food problem as
a whole and remember our basic policy.

It is open to the House to discuss our basic policy but in
so far as the Government is concerned, there ha> been no
occasion to effect any change in it. And as far as we can see,
no such occasion is likely to arise. I can only add that our
basic approach will remain unchanged, even though the
food position is much brighter.

The Finance Minister pointed out the close relationship
between the food question and planning. I put it in a more
homely way when I said that planning was a kind of house-
keeping for the nation. The fact that we are now better off in
many respects does not mean that we should leave the
nation’s house-keeping to random forces. What we should
do is to modify and improve our methods of house-keeping
if we find that they are inadequate. But in regard to the
supply of food and other necessaries of life, it is not enough
merely to see that there is fair distribution or that people do
not prosper at the cost of others. If we do this and no more,
our economy will remain static. We must also see that we
get the best out of our development and planning pro-
grammes. For instance, if there is a surplus of food in the
country, we would naturally like the nation to be fed more
adequately; but we must also think beyond the immediate
wants of the present and utilize our resources with foresight.
There is, for instance, a pressing need for development in the
country and we should really be thinking in terms of even-
tually exporting some of our surplus food so that we can

76

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1958

increase our capacity for importing essential goods like heavy
machinery. Perhaps, the House remembers that, about
twenty years ago, a phrase became rather notorious in
Germany: guns versus butter. In those days, Nazi Germany
preferred guns to butter; her people gladly went without
butter so that they could export it and get guns for the money
thus earned. Of course, we are not interested in guns in the
same way; nor are we going to give up butter for guns. We
might, however, have to give up butter for something more
useful to us in our economic development. Even though we
possess all the necessaries of life, we must learn to tighten
our belts in order to get the things we do not immediately
want but which are vital for future growth. I do not suggest
that we should do without adequate and healthy food but
I see no reason why we should put up with circumstances
which allow the wastage of food. It is difficult enough — at
least for some of us — to plan our own house-keeping. To
take charge of house-keeping for the entire nation is, there-
fore, a very intricate and difficult matter, indeed. The basic
issue before the House is whether we can entrust this vital
and important matter to free enterprise and an absolutely
free market.

Today, the conception of free enterprise and an
absolutely free market is out of date, because an economy
based on them soon becomes unmanageable. In a country
like India, where resources are limited and have to be
stretched to capacity, we cannot let free enterprise and an
absolutely free market dominate the scene. That does not
mean that we should wipe out the free market completely
but we have necessarily to control the basic economy of the
country at strategic levels. That especially applies to food.
The nature of government control should depend on the
existing circumstances. We can easily discuss this as it con-
cerns factual data. I should like to give the House a parallel
from the army. The function of an army is to control a parti-
cular area or State. He would, indeed, be a foolish general
who would spread his army in every village of the area and
try to control every independent individual. The situation
could be controlled more effectively if he were to concentrate

NO CHANGE IN FOOD POLICY

77

only at strategic points. This applies to our policy of food
distribution also. We cannot allow powerful forces to upset
the basis on which we plan to act. It remains to be consider-
ed, however, what the strategic points in regard to food
distribution are. Also, we must not formulate our policy on
the presumption that nothing untoward will happen and
that there will always be a good harvest. Take Pakistan, for
instance. Pakistan flourished like the green bay-tree in
regard to food for three years or more. Then prices shot up
because of the Korean war. Pakistan made a lot of money
and very unfavourable comparisons were made between
India and Pakistan in respect of the food situation. It is not
for me to criticize the policy of the Pakistan Government. I
do not know the details but it is obvious that a single bad
harvest has thrown the administration completely out of
gear. They have had a bad time in regard to food. Here is
a country with a considerable surplus of food suddenly faced
with a heavy deficit and forced to have recourse to import-
ing food from the far corners of the earth! Therefore, we
cannot afford to base our policy merely on hopes. Let us
realize that.

The other question to be considered is the application of
strategic controls or the periodical relaxation of non-strategic
controls. Although this is a detail, it has an important bear-
ing on the actual working out of an effective policy of food
distribution. It does not necessarily follow that a single policy
will answer the needs of the whole country. Conditions vary
in different States and one has to adapt oneself to them,
although the basic approach must remain uniform. Its
implementation will necessarily depend on internal factors
peculiar to the State in question. When one of these factors
happens to be food, it has to be considered very caref ull y
indeed. I heard the other day that one of our State Govern-
ments was taking action against a large number — I think
it was 15,000 — of young boys for a petty offence like carry-
ing a handful of rice -or wheat from here to there. When a
State is constrained to spend all its administrative energy on
catching little boys, there is something wrong in its method
of approach. There is nothing wrong with control; but there

78

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

is something wrong with wasting energy on trivial offences
while the major offenders get away. It is far better to impose
some kind of regulation which, if I may repeat, gives the
State Governments more control over the strategic points
than to catch hold of boys and girls for technical breaches.

There is a tendency in each State to consider itself as
something different from the rest. But the poor people living
on the borders of the States probably have no such distinctive
feeling. They may have their relatives on one side and the
nearest market on the other side of the border. It would,
therefore, be natural for them to want to cross over. So, the
less we upset the normal functions on the border, the better
it will be. We would avoid harassing situations which do not
in any way help our basic economy and are only a needless
burden.

It must be made perfectly clear that, at the present
moment, our concern is not with rice and wheat. We are
dealing specifically with millets which constitute a consider-
able portion — about 40 per cent or so — of our food consump-
tion. Millets are normally produced for local consumption
and have, therefore, not been distributed on as large a scale
as rice and wheat have been. For this reason, the distribution
of millets, in spite of the fact that they constitute 40 per cent
of our food consumption — I speak subject to correction —
has not aggravated the food problem as much as wheat and
rice have done. All I am saying is that every step we take
should be considered from the point of view of its effect on
the general situation and in particular on the rice and wheat
situation. So far, the millet situation has not affected our
policy very much but if we go a step further and if, as is
proposed, we maintain State barriers for millets, leaving
only internal freedom of movement, we shall be maintain-
ing a good deal of control. The proposed step, therefore,
appears to be a fairly safe one from the point of view of
our larger policy. At the same time, it eliminates a great
deal of petty troubles and harassments. It gives us a
chance to see how things develop; if they do not develop
satisfactorily, it is always open to us to revoke this step and
try something else. I suggest to the House that this is the

NO CHANGE IN FOOD POLICY

79

proper approach. I believe that an amendment has been
made to the effect that the Government should not only accept
and approve of the general policy of control but also be agree-
able to any advantageous adjustments or modifications that
are in keeping with its basic policy. The amendment runs
thus:

“and having considered the same, this House approves
of the policy of Government regarding general control
of foodgrains and welcomes the desire of Government
to adjust the same to suit local or temporary condi-
tions without prejudice to the basic objectives.”

I think that amendment represents correctly the position of
the Government. I should like the House to realize that the
basic fact of our food policy is the control of foodgrains.
This is essential, because we must grow more in our country
and distribute it equitably, if we are to work for a steady and
rapid decline in the import of foodstuffs. At the same time,
we must recognize that ours is not merely a doctrinaire
approach — which has no relation to changing facts and
changing situations — or one that merely harasses people
without producing any results.

We just cannot function if we concentrate only on 10 or
15 per cent of our people and forget the others. Among the
others, there are a large number of people who are food
producers. The difficulty arises in the case of those who are
neither food producers nor city dwellers nor dwellers of
rationed areas. Any policy that we frame must keep in view
the necessity of keeping the prices down for these people.

Yesterday, Dr Lanka Sundaram reminded me of the
repeated statements I made three years ago to the" effect that
we would put an end to all food imports by March or April
1952. I forget when exactly I made that statement but I did
so in all sincerity and with every intention of trying my best.
I regret, however, that my words have been falsified and I
feel thoroughly ashamed that what was almost a pledge to
the country has been broken. Therefore, I am very much
averse to making any definite statement or pledge now. But
I do not see why I should not say that we intend making
every effort to reduce food imports and, if possible, put an

80

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

end to them within the period of the Plan, unless grave
emergencies occur. This is our proposition and the statistics,
as they appeal now, give us some hope that it is a feasible
one.

ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY

I have a feeling that another stage in our journey has been
reached and a duty done — well done, if I may say so. At the
same time, I feel even more strongly that a still more difficult
duty is ahead of us. Another journey has immediately to be
undertaken in which there are no resting places.

As far as the present Plan is concerned, it may be said to
have had its beginning long before the Planning Commission
came into existence. Much thought and many discussions
had been devoted to the question of planning in India before
the Planning Commission was actually created. I suppose
I can speak about the Planning Commission without being
unduly modest, because my connection with it has been
intimate. Nevertheless, the burden of work fell lightly upon
me. Others carried the burden and if I praise the work of
the Commission, I do not praise myself. As I said, I can
speak a little more freely about it than if I had been one of
the recipients of my own praise.

The Planning Commission has woxked very hard, very
conscientiously, very earnestly and with a true crusading
spirit in preparing this Plan.

I should like, therefore, to pay tributes to them — and it
is not empty tribute paid blindly but tribute paid with due
knowledge of what they have done. And that, if I may say
so, need not necessarily mean that we agree or disagree with
any particular chapter or particular part of the Report.
The work of the Commission is, in a sense, the first of its
kind — certainly the first of its kind in India. I think we might
justifiably add that, in its particular context, it is the first

Speech in Che House of the People, New Delhi, December 15, 1952

ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY

81

thing of its kind anywhere. Planning became well known
when the first Five Year Plan of the Soviet Union came into
the field twenty years ago and has been something rather
fashionable and much talked about ever since.

It is easy to talk about planning in limited spheres of
activity. Naturally, planning for a whole nation involves
• infinitely greater effort than planning in bits. Planning, in
the larger sense, is thus an integrated way of looking at a
nation’s manifold activities. 1 do not mean to go in for
comparisons but the old Soviet approach to planning was
different from ours, both from the point of view of objectives
and that of the methods adopted, though the difference
between the two countries was greater in the Litter case.
In view of the fact that we function under a democratic
set-up, which we have deliberately adopted and enshrined
in our Constitution and in this Parliament, any planning
that we do must naturally be within that set-up. The
Planning Commission does not have the right to draw up a
programme that has no relation to our Constitution or to
the set-up under which we work.

Now, that puts certain self-imposed limitations on a plan
but I would like to say that those limitations are not final.
I do not think it would be right to say that democratic
functioning necessarily means limitations. It may make the
way a little more difficult; the procedure adopted may have
to be a little more complicated. But it should be possible for
a democratic set-up, if it is properly worked, to make provi-
sion for everything we want done. I suppose that is the only
real justification for a democratic set-up — apart from other
justifications. In a democracy, things are built on a firm
foundation — even though it may take a longer time — and
built with due consideration for the individual. However,
that is not a point I wish to labour. What I want to say is
that since we have accepted a democratic set-up and the
way in which our Parliament functions, we must consider
this Plan on a similar basis. We have framed a Constitution
and we should abide by that Constitution. Nevertheless,
let it not be said that every part, every chapter and every
word of that Constitution is so sacrosanct that it cannot be

82

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

changed even if the needs of the country or the nation so
demand. If it is thought that some part of the Constitution
comes in the way of the nation’s progress, it can undoubtedly
be changed — not lightly but after full deliberation. But,
generally speaking, we have to plan in accordance with that
Constitution.

Now, this Plan or rather its parent, the Draft Outline,
was placed before the country and before this Parliament,
a little over a year ago. At the time, it received general
approval from Parliament and has, since then, been the
subject of both approval and criticism and, in some parts
of the country, of condemnation. Anyhow, the reaction to the
Plan all over the country has been generally favourable.
The Planning Commission has had the benefit of the criticism
that was placed before them and, I must say, has profited
even by the condemnation of certain parts of the Plan. I
doubt if any other plan has ever been worked out in such
close collaboration with various organizations, parties,
States, opinions and viewpoints, in fact, with all the elements
that go to make up a nation’s life. In that sense, therefore,
it might be said to be the result of a whole nation’s efforts
and not only the production of five or six people in the
Planning Commission. It represents much more than just
the opinions of the members of the Planning Commission.
They had to deal with a very difficult problem. Of course,
the country is big but, apart from its size, they had to deal
with a complicated federal structure and with an economy
which in many ways is very backward. They had to suffer
the consequences of past acts committed by us and by others.
They had to handle a kind of social consciousness which,
though very desirable, is, nevertheless, new to the country.
They had to keep in view the great ambition to progress
rapidly, which we all share and, at the same time, to work
with very limited resources to further that great ambition.
They had and have to deal with a stormy period of history,
a period of trial and crisis and change and to work with a
sense of disaster round the corner. In India, often enough,
we have to deal with a way of thinking which follows old
ruts, sometimes with superstitions and with outlooks that

ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY

83

stand in the way of progress. We have even had to deal with
the reformer of yesterday who is, if I may say so with all
respect, a conservative today and with the revolutionary of
yesterday, who forgets that today is different from yesterday.
So, the Planning Commission had to deal with a situation
that was live and dynamic and for which no religious,
economic or other dogma was adequate.

We are dealing with India and not any other country.
We should not try to reproduce conditions which obtain
elsewhere. Of course, there are certain principles, certain
ideals and objectives which hold not only for various
countries but for various ages, too; they do not change.
India herself has represented various principles of that type
and I hope she will hold to them. At the same time, I
earnestly hope and believe that she will give up ihe large
number of superstitions and evil ways of old which have
impeded her growth and which are even today used to
divert people from a consideration of the essential things.
Our plan for future progress must cope with the amalgam
and variety we have in India. When I see these two heavy
volumes of the Report of the Planning Commission, my
mind conjures up the vision of something vast — the mighty
theme of a nation building and re-making itself. We are,
all of us, working together to make a new India — not
abstractly for a nation but for the 360 million people
who are wanting to progress as individuals and as
groups.

In fact, we are trying to catch up, as far as we can, with
the Industrial Revolution that occurred long ago in Western
countries and brought about great changes in the course of
a century or more. That Revolution ultimately branched off
in two directions which are, at present, represented by the
high degree of technological development in the United
States of America on the one hand and by the Soviet Union
on the other. These two types of development, even though
they might be in conflict, are branches of the same tree. The
Industrial Revolution has a long history from which we can
learn many lessons. We are apt to think in terms of European
history when we consider India. I do not understand why

84

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

we should repeat the errors of the past. We must make an
effort to learn from the past.

It is obvious that India must be industrialized as rapidly
as possible. And industrialization includes, of course, all
kinds of industry — major, middling, small, village and
cottage. However rapid our industrialization may be, it
cannot possibly absorb more than a small part of the popu-
lation of this country in the next ten, twenty or even thirty
years. Hundreds of millions will remain who have to be
employed chiefly in agriculture. These people must, in
addition, be given employment in smaller industries like
cottage industries and so on. Hence, the importance of village
and cottage industries. I think the argument one often hears
about big industry versus cottage and village industry is
misconceived. I have no doubt that we cannot raise the
people’s level of existence without the development of major
industries in this country; in fact, I will go further and say
that we cannot even remain a free country without them.
Certain things, like adequate defence, are essential to
freedom and these cannot be had unless we develop industry
in a major way. But we must always remember that the
development of heavy industry does not by itself solve the
problem of the millions in this country. We have to develop
the village and cottage industry in a big way, at the same
time making sure that in trying to develop industry, big and
small, we do not forget the human factor. We are not merely
out to get more money and more production. We ultimately
want better human beings. We want our people to have
greater opportunities, not only from an economic or material
point of view but at other levels also. We have seen in other
countries that economic growth by itself does not necessarily
mean human growth or even national growth. We have to
keep this in mind and also remember that the growth of a
nation has little to do with the shouting to be heard in the
market places and the stock exchanges of the country. So,
an integrated plan for the economic growth of the country,
for the growth of the individual, for greater opportunities
for every individual and for the greater freedom of the country
has to be drawn up and drawn up within the framework

ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY

85

of political democracy. Political democracy will only
justify itself if it ultimately succeeds in producing these
results. If it does not, it will have to yield to some other kind
of economic or social structure which we may or may not
like. Ultimately, it is the results that decide the structure a
country will adopt. When we talk of political democracy,
we must remember that it no longer has the particular
significance it had in the 19th century, for instance. If it is
to have any meaning, political democracy must gradually
or, if you like, rapidly lead to economic democracy. If there
is economic inequality in the country, all the political
democracy and all the adult suffrage in the world - annot
bring about real democracy. Therefore, your objective must
be to put an end to all differences between class and class,
to bring about more equality and a more unitary society —
in other words, to strive for economic democracy. We have
to think in terms of ultimately developing into a classless
society. That may still be a far-off ideal; I do not know. But
we must, nevertheless, keep it in view.

We, in this country, must not think of approaching our
objectives through conflict and force. We have achieved
many things by peaceful means and there is no reason why
we should suddenly abandon that method and take to
violence. There is a very special reason why we should not
do so. 1 am quite convinced that, if we try to attain our
ideals and objectives, however high they may be, by violent
methods we shall delay matters greatly and help the growth
of the very evils we are fighting. India is not only a big
country but a country with a good deal of variety; and if
anyone takes to the sword, he will inevitably be faced with
the sword of someone else. This clash between swords will
degenerate into fruitless violence and, in the process, the
limited energies of the nation will be dissipated or, at any
rate, greatly undermined.

Now, the method of peaceful progress is ultimately the
method of democratic progress. Keeping in mind the ultimate
aim of democratic thought, it is not enough that we should
simply give our votes and leave everything else to look after
itself. The ultimate aim is economic democracy. The ultimate

7—11 DFDJB5

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

aim is to put an end to the differences between the rich
and the poor, between the people who have opportunities
and those who have very few or none. Every obstacle in the
way of that aim must be removed, whether it is in a friendly
and co-operative way or by State pressure or by law. Nothing
should be allowed to come between you and the achievement
of that social objective.

A plan of this type does not merely mean establishing
a number of factories or increasing production in some
instances. That, of course, is necessary but something with a
deeper significance, something that aims at the gradual
development of a particular structure of society has to be
achieved. Of course, you and I cannot lay down what the
next generation must do; nor can we predict what the next
generation will be like. In these days of rapid technological
advance, no man knows what the world will be like in the
future. Because India is technologically backward, we
sometimes discuss our big problems in a rather static way,
forgetting that the very ground under our feet is always
changing and may be slipping away. Unless we change
with it, we may stumble or be left behind. The fact that
technological advance has moved at an enormous pace
since the Industrial Revolution is well known; even so, we
are not emotionally aware of what is happening from day
to day. It may well be that, in the course of the next ten or
twenty years, this technological advance might change the
whole aspect of the world and that will naturally have a
tremendous effect on the life of human beings. It will affect
their thinking, their economic structure, their social structure
and ultimately their political structure also. Anything may
happen. We cannot bind the future. We can only deal with
facts as they are.

I mention these broad factors, because I feel that our
minds must have that dynamic quality, that quality of vision,
that revolutionary quality which even our experts lack,
not to speak of the average layman. For instance, our
economists and our planners have become very static in their
approach. We talk of revolutions, believing all the time that
a revolution is merely a process in which you can break one

ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY

87

another’s heads. That is not a revolution. Good or bad, a
revolution is something that fundamentally changes the
political and economic structure of the existing society. It is
with this kind of background that we must consider this first
attempt of ours at planning.

Naturally, the Plan is not perfect. It is easy to pick holes
in it. It is also easy to demonstrate how it is wrong here or
inadequate elsewhere or to show that much more could have
been done or said. But perfection is a big word and we do
not presume to claim it. I have no doubt that the Planning
Commission would like to profit by what has been said about
the Plan. But I ask you to look at it in a wider conte' i than
one of mere criticism. This is the first attempt in India to
integrate the agricultural, industrial, social, ecouo-iic and
other aspects of the counti\ into a single framework of
thinking. It is a ver) important step and even if the thinking
is partly faulty it does not detract from the magnitude of
what has been attempted and accomplished It has made
the whole country planning conscious. It has made people
think of this country as a whole. I think it is most essential
that India, which is united politically and in many other
ways, should, to the same extent, be united mentally and
emotionally also. We often go off at a tangent on grounds
of provincialism, communalism, religion or caste. We have
no emotional awareness of the unity of the country. Planning
will help us in having an emotional awareness of our problems
as a whole. It will help us to see the isolated problems in
villages or districts or even provinces in their larger context.
Therefore, the mere act of planning, the mere act of having
approached the question of progress in this way and of
producing a report of this type is something on which we
might, I think, congratulate ourselves.

When we talked about planning two or three years ago,
powerful voices were raised against it. For some people,
planning simply amounted to helping industry by tariffs or
money or other means and then giving it a completely free
hand. It is the essence of planning to have a broad idea of
the kind of control that should be exercised over the economy
of the country. This Plan deals with both the public sector

88

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1 95S

and the private sector. The House must remember — in
fact, everybody should remember — that the private sector is
also going to be a controlled sector. Of course, it will not be
controlled to the same extent as the public sector; but it will,
nevertheless, be increasingly controlled as time goes on. The
control over the private sector will relate not only to its
dividends and profits but will extend to all the strategic
points in the economy of the country. This Report — rightly
I think — is cautious about many matters. If you read it
carefully, you will find that it has stated what can be done
and what should be done. It has left the door open. Banking
and insurance, for instance, are highly important in the
economy of a country. Speaking from a strategic point of
view, it is essential that they should be controlled in any
economy. The Report does not deal with how this should
be done, because the Planning Commission did not think
it was justified in laying down directions about details. In the
earlier chapters of this Report, however, the Planning
Commission has pointed out the importance of banking and
insurance and urged that steps be taken to control them so
that they may be brought within the purview and sphere of
a controlled economy.

The method of working out a plan is ultimately the
method of trial and error. The best of us can see only dimly
into the future, if at all. We have to utilize our past
experience. What makes the Plan complicated is that we
have to deal not with measurable things like steel and cement
but with 560 million human beings, each of whom is different
from the other. All the statisticians and economists in the
world cannot say what a multitude of individuals will or
will not feel or do. The method of trial and error is the only
one open to us. I have no doubt that when the time comes
for a second Five Year Plan, we shall be in a far better
position and on firmer ground, because we will have gone
through the process of thinking and planning and benefited
from its consequences. Our experience of trying to build
according to this Plan will, in the future, stand us in good
stead. The Second Plan, therefore, will be much more
effective and far-reaching, because it will be based on actual

ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY

knowledge and experience derived, not from theory, but
from practice.

Although we still call this a Five Year Plan, two years of
it are already over. Now, it is really a plan for the next
three years or so. We started on the Plan with certain limita-
tions, because we had to accept the existing conditions.
We could not start from scratch. Our resources were already
tied up in things that had been started earlier. Therefore,
we had to utilize the balance of the resources as best as we
could.

The Five Year Plan will, therefore, be over in another
three years. We must remember that this Plan is, ; t I may
say so, essentially a prepaiatory venture for greater and
more rapid progress in future. As I said, the Second Five
Year Plan, if we build our foundations well, will proceed at a
much faster rate of progress than is indicated in the present
one.

Theie is much talk of industrialization. In the initial
chapters of the Plan, certain figures pertaining to the amounts
allotted to industiy, agiiculture, social service, transport,
etc., are given. In this respect, industry does not seem to
occupy as important a place as agriculture. If I remember
correctly, a very large sum is to be spent on irrigation. We
certainly attach importance to industry; but in the present
context we attach far greater importance to agriculture and
food and matters pertaining to agriculture. If our agricultural
foundation is not strong then the industry we seek to build
will not have a strong basis either. Apart from that, the
situation in the country today is such that, if our food front
cracks up, everything else will crack up, too. Therefore,
we dare not weaken our food front. If our agriculture becomes
strongly entrenched, as we hope it will, then it will be rela-
tively easy for us to progress more rapidly on the industrial
front, whereas if we concentrate only on industrial
development and leave agriculture in a weak condition we
shall ultimately be weakening industry. That is why primary
attention has been given to agriculture and food and that
I think, is essential in a country like India at the present
moment.

90

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

However, certain basic and key industries have been
given due consideration. The essential basis for the develop-
ment of industry is power — electric power. The progress
made by a country can be judged by the electric power it
has. That is a good test for development in any country.
Provision has been made for electric power in the various
hydro-electric and multipurpose schemes in the Plan.

I do not propose to cover these two big volumes in my
preliminary remarks. I have no doubt that hon. Members
mean to study them with great care and make their sugges-
tions in the course of the debate. I would like to suggest, if
I may, that the first four chapters — and a few others — in
which the general approach, the principles and the objectives,
which govern the Plan as well as the structure of the Plan
are laid down, deserve more attention than the others and
may profitably be studied with special care. The rest, though
important, is the working out of details and no Parliament
can sit down to work out details or priorities. A Parliament
can only lay down the objectives and the general structure
that has to be followed.

I submit. Sir, that we should bear these general principles
and objectives in mind, while we determine the methods. If
I may say so, we have already determined the methods and
are working according to them. Even so, I wish to make our
conception of democracy perfectly clear. It is not limited to
political democracy. We do not think that democracy, as is
sometimes believed in other countries, means the economic
doctrine of laissez-faire. That doctrine, although some people
still talk of it, is almost as dead as the century which produced
it — dead even in the countries where people talk about it
most. It is totally unsuited to conditions in the world today.
In any event, so far as we in India are concerned, we reject
it completely. We are not going to have anything to do with
it. That, however, does not mean that the State will take
charge of everything.

This Plan will account for two thousand odd crores of
rupees — about several hundred crores above the amount
provided for by the Draft Plan. There is a big gap between
the estimate of our resources and the Rs. 2,000 crores. We

ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY

91-

hope to be able to expand our resources. We may receive
help from other countries. We have already done so to some
extent. Some hon. Members have occasionally expressed
their fear that this help from outside may impose restrictions
on our freedom. It is perfectly true that such dependence
involves a certain risk. If we depend on others to supply us
with'weapons of war for our Army or to see to our economic
advancement, we shall be weakening our position. I would
rather that our advance was slower than that we became
dependent on the aid of other countries.

Provided we are strong enough ourselves, I really do not
see why we should be afraid of accepting the kind of aid
that helps us to progress more rapidly. With that aid we
could do many things which we would have to postpone
otherwise. Foreign aid involves a slight risk, not so much of
being tied down as of compromising in a moral sense. There
is no reason, however, why we should be afraid of accepting
aid, if it does not influence our policy or oui activities in any
way.

Sir, it is late now and the subject is a comprehensive
one. I intended my remarks to be a mere preamble to your
consideration of this voluminous report. I have no doubt
that in the course of this debate many points will be raised
which will need to be dealt with by other Members, my
colleagues and myself.

I would like to impart to the House something of what
I feel on this occasion. The re-making of our country is a
great theme and we are engaged in a tremendous task which
requires not only all our united effort but united effort with
enthusiasm and the crusading spirit. If the House accepts
this Report in the proper spirit, I have no doubt that the
Plan, from being something on paper, will become a living
thing for the country. If you go to your respective consti-
tuencies with this message from this House and this
Parliament, it may well be possible that we shall far exceed
the expectations of the Planning Commission.

LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS

W ithin a few hours, this year will come to an end and
we shall all step into the New Year. I should like to wish
all of you, who listen to me tonight, as well as others, happiness
for the New Year and the will to work and build up our
country. Happiness and work are really wedded together, for
there can be no true happiness without the feeling that one is
doing something worth while. What can be more worth while
for any of us than to participate in the building up anew of
this ancient and ever young country?

Three days ago, I was in Travancore-Cochin, the
southern-most State of India, amidst some of the loveliest
sceneries in the country'. In this State live a gifted people
with higher educational standards than there are anywhere
else in the country. It is a progressive State and I was happy
to perform two important functions there: the first marked
the construction of a new railway link joining the north and
the south of the State and the other was the inauguration of
a factory for processing monazite. I spent two unusual days
in seclusion in a game sanctuary where wild animals live
protected from civilized man.

From that southern tip of India, I pictured this great
country spread out before me right up to the Himalayas in
the north and thought of her long and chequered story.
Ours is a wonderful inheritance but how shall we keep it?
How shall we serve the country which has given us so much
and make her great and strong?

When we look at the world around us, there is much to
give us hope but there is also a great deal to fill us with
dismay, for there is fear and hatred and violence and the talk
of war, just when it would seem that the prize that the world
has so long sought was almost within its grasp. We look at
our own country and find both good and ill, powerful forces
at work to build her and also forces which would disrupt
and disintegrate her. We cannot do much to affect the destiny
of this world as a whole but surely we can make a brave
attempt to mould the destiny of our 360 million people.

Broadcast from All India Radio, Delhi, December 31, 1952

LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS

93

What then are we to do? What shall we aim at and what
road shall we travel by? It is of the foremost importance that
we should not lose ourselves in the passion and prejudice of
the moment. If we are to aim high, we should adhere to the
high principles which have always formed the background
of Indian thought from the days of the Buddha to our own
day when Gandhiji showed us the path to right action.
Greatness .comes from vision, the tolerance of the spirit,
compassion and an even temper which is not ruffled by ill
fortune or good fortune. It is not through hatred and violence
or .internal discord that we make real progress. As in the
world today, so also in our own country, the philosophy of
force can no longer pay and our progress must be based on
peaceful co-operation and tolerance of each other.

In India, the first essential is the maintenance oi the unity
of the country, not merely a political unity but a unity of the
mind and the heart, which precludes the narrow urges that
make for disunity and which breaks down the barriers raised
in the name of religion or those between State and State or,
for that matter, any other barrier. Our economy and social
structure have outlived their day and it has become a matter
of urgent necessity for us to refashion them so that they may
promote the happiness of all our people in things material
and spiritual. We have to aim deliberately at a social philo-
sophy which seeks a fundamental transformation of this
structure, at a society which is not dominated by the urge
for private profit and by individual greed and in which there
is fair distribution of political and economic power. We
must aim at a classless society, based on co-operative effort,
with opportunities for all. To realize this we have to pursue
peaceful methods in a democratic way.

We live in an age of science. We hear and read of
revolutions but the greatest revolutionary force in the past
150 years has been science, which has transformed human
life and has changed political, social and economic organi-
zations. This process of change goes on at an ever-increasing
pace and we have to understand it and adapt ourselves to it.

I want to tell you about the Five Year Plan which the
Planning Commission has produced after two and a half

94

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU S SPEECHES 1949-1953

years of labour. Parliament has put its seal on it and now the
time has come to implement it with all our strength. The
Plan endeavours to embody the social philosophy to which
I have referred. Democratic planning means the utilization
of all our available resources and, in particular, the maximum
quantity of labour willingly given and rightly directed so as
to promote the good of the community and the individual.

I cannot tell you much about this Plan in a few minutes
and I should like you to study it or at least the summaries of
it because it affects each one of you; and in a democratic
society everyone should understand and help in fulfilling its
tasks. The Plan, of course, embraces the entire country but
it also deals separately with each part of it — the States as
well as the smaller local areas. It also offers opportunities for
voluntary organizations and workers to fulfil a vital and
increasing role in national development. It has a public
sector and a private sector, though the latter has necessarily
to accept a measure of control, so that the objectives of the
Plan may be secured. It endeavours to integrate various
activities — agriculture, industry and social services. Agri-
culture is bound to continue to be our principal activity.
The greatest stress is laid upon it, because it is only on the
basis of agricultural prosperity that we can make industrial
progress. But agriculture has to be fitted into the larger
economy of the nation. The growth of industry, big and
small, is essential for any modern nation. Indeed, without
industrial development, there cannot be any higher standard
of living for our people or even enough strength in the nation
for it to preserve its freedom.

A proper land policy is essential for the progress of
agriculture. We have gone some way towards achieving this
by putting an end to the zamindari and jagirdari systems in
many States. We must complete this task, eliminate all inter-
mediaries and fix a limit for the size of holdings. We hope
that the next step will be co-operative farming which will
take advantage of the latest agricultural techniques. Greater
production is essential, both in agriculture and industry, if we
are to fight poverty and raise standards, as we must.

We are a peaceful nation and our general policy as well as

LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS

95

our economy is going to be based on the methods of peace
and the avoidance of exploitation. We want to develop,
therefore, a balanced economy and, as far as possible,
promote self-sufficiency. We want to work more particularly
for the expansion of the home market so that standards may
go up. In the development of self-sufficiency and the provision
of Work and employment, village and cottage industries arc
of paramount importance.

I shall mention a few of the targets we have laid down.
The first one is that of food. We must become self-sufficient in
food and not be dependent on other countries for our most
essential requirements. The Plan will raise food production
by nearly eight million tons. It is intended to provide irri-
gation through new major works to more than eight million
acres of land and through minor works to eleven million
acres. Further, it is proposed to reclaim and develop more
than seven million acres of land. You know about the great
river valley schemes which, besides irrigation, will supply
over a million kilowatts of power to industry. Power is the
foundation of all developments today. We have attached
great importance to minor works of irrigation as they yield
quicker and more widespread results.

Cotton production will be raised by over 12 lakh bales
and jute by 20 lakh bales. It is proposed to increase the
production of hand-loom cotton textiles from 800 to 1,700
million yards. In steel and cement, there will be substantial
increases in production. At Sindri, we have already a large
fertilizer factory and a locomotive workshop at Chittaranjan.
We are setting up a new steel plant, a machine tool factory
and a plant for the manufacture of heavy electrical equip-
ment. Air transport is being nationalized and a modern
ship-building industry developed.

You know about the many community centres that have
been stai ted all over the country. We attach great importance
to these, for they attempt to train our men and women in
rural areas in co-operative effort for the good of the commu-
nity. Here, even more than elsewhere, there is room for
voluntary effort.

Our ideals are high and our objectives great Compared

96

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

with them, the Five Year Plan appears to be a modest
beginning. But let us remember that this is the first great
effort of its kind and that it is based on the realities of today
and not on our wishes. It must, therefore, be related to our
present resources or else it will remain unreal. It is designed
to be the foundation of a bigger and better plan of progress
in the future. Let us lay the foundations well and the rest
will inevitably follow. The Plan is not based on any dogmatic
or doctrinaire approach to our problems; nor is it rigid.

There is scope for advance and variation in it where
necessary. As we learn from experience, we shall improve it.
It is a dynamic plan for a dynamic nation determined to
go ahead and stand on its feet and to bring about a new
social order free from exploitation, poverty, unemployment
and injustice. It is a step towards the establishment of a
society which gives security to the individual and offers
employment and encouragement to creative activity and
adventure. If we accept it in the proper spirit and act upon
it, (lie Plan will prove a great liberating force for the energies
of the nation.

The Plan is a big one embracing innumerable activities
in the country. But far bigger is the vision which draws us
forward, a vision inspired by courage and hope and reasoned
optimism. Let us have faith in our country and ourselves.
Above all, the Plan is a programme of work. Let us work,
therefore, and give up for a while empty destructive criticism.
Let us all become partners in this great enterprise of building
a new India.

THE NEW ROLE OF KHADI

I have the greatest pleasure in inaugurating the first meeting
of the newly constituted Khadi and Village Industries
Board. I believe that the development of khadi and village

Translated from speech in Hindi at the inauguration of the Khadi and
Village Industries Board, New Delhi, February 2, 195S

THE NEW ROLE OF KHADI

97

industries in India is of paramount importance, not only to
the unemployment problem in the country but to the advance-
ment of die nation as a whole.

However much we might develop our big industries,
there is still considerable scope for the expansion of village
industries in a country like India. The question is one of
co-ordinating the small industries in the over-all economy of
the country. We are all anxious to develop khadi and other
small industries, not for the sake of a ‘show’ or for any exhi-
bitionist reasons but because we want to achieve concrete
results. No modern nation, however, can retain its freedom
without the help of large-scale industries which should be
State-owned and State-controlled.

We sincerely believe that small industries can help
considciably in the economic advancement of the nation.
As you know, unemployment presents our most difficult
problem today and the development of village industries
could certainly play a prominent role in solving it. Indeed,
the Welfare State has no meaning unless every individual is
employed and takes part in nation-building activities. I do
not think there will be any conflict between big industry and
village industry, provided there is proper co-operation.

I have heard complaints that the Government has not
given adequate help to the khadi and village industries. If
these industries depend for their development and existence
solely on Government help and have no inherent strength
or vitality of their own, they cannot survive for long. It is for
the workers employed in the khadi and village industries to
think seriously about this problem and its psychological
aspect.

Gandhiji laid particular emphasis on the charkha, khadi
and village industries. He made the charkha an economic
and revolutionary symbol for the people. There was a time
in the days of our struggle for independence, when the
revolutionary aspect of the khadi industry far outweighed
its economic aspect. Obviously, we cannot develop the khadi
industry today by emphasizing its revolutionary character.
It can only become a force in society if we develop its
economic character. I would like to stress the fact that this

98

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

can only be done if we approach the khadi and village
industries in a new way and recognize the fact, too, that
they must now develop under the impetus of their own
strength and not cling too much to help from the
Government.

I should, however, like to warn the khadi workers that
they must not become dogmatic. They should for ever keep
an open mind and be receptive to modern ideas. With a new
approach and outlook, they could revitalize and regenerate
the entire industry. Even the khadi and village workers will
have to adjust themselves to this fast changing world and
consider how best they can use new technical and scientific
methods in developing their industries.

I would advise the various khadi and small industry
organizations not to feel helpless and not to blame the
Government for the static position of the industries. No
organization with such an outlook can ever forge ahead.
The faults of others are always there to criticize but we must
look to our own first.

It has been suggested that khadi be used by the Army
and in government offices. I wonder whether khadi can be
of much practical use to a soldier who has to crawl on the
ground or make his way through thick jungles. Some State
Governments have objected to adopting khadi on the ground
that it would increase their expenditure. As I have already
stated, there cannot be much progress if these industries
depend entirely on government assistance.

However, on behalf of the Government, I pledge my
fullest support to the Board in its task of developing khadi
and village industries in the country. Such a Board should
have been set up four years ago. Although I am surprised at
the delay, I am glad that at least a beginning has been made.
When the Board was about to be constituted, some of my
friends suggested that I, in my capacity of Prime Minister,
should be closely associated with it. I approved of the idea
but I was told that there were certain rules and regulations
forbidding the Prime Minister to have personal association
with such organizations and institutions and in any case the
inclusion of the Prime Minister in such a Board would have

THE NEW ROLE OF KHADI

99

had only publicity value. I, therefore, wrote to the sponsors
that I would not like to be directly associated but that I
would give it all the help I possibly could.

ON KASHMIR

LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE

T he House will remember that a few days ago I made a
fairly lengthy statement in this House about the affairs of
Jammu and Kashmir State. I do not propose to weary the
House by a repetition of what I said then. But at this stage,
I should like to emphasize certain aspects of this problem.

For the last five years nearly, the Kashmir problem has
been one of the heaviest burdens that the Government has
had to carry. It has been a heavy burden because it was a
complicated affair and one in which our saying ‘aye’ or ‘nay’
was not quite enough. Other factors were involved. There
are many things in this world which we would like to change
but we cannot shape the world to our will. We live, as the
House well knows, on the eve of what appears to be a tragedy
in the world and we try — when I say ‘we’ I do not mean we
in this House but people all over the world — to avert the
tragedy and somehow to assure peace for this world. But
nobody can control events completely. Of course, one tries
to mould them to certain extent, tries to affect them in some
way; but what the ultimate resultant of the various forces
and passions and prejudices at work. is likely to be, no man
knows. The misfortune of the State of Jammu and Kashmir
and our misfortune have become a part — perhaps a small
part but, nevertheless, a part — of the larger picture of the
world. And therefore the difficulties in our way have
increased greatly. It is an international problem and would
have been an international problem anyhow if it concerned
any other nation besides India — and it docs. Its international
character was further emphasized because a large number of
other countries took an interest in the problem and gave
advice.

Speech in the House of the People, New Delhi, August 7, 1952

LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE

Ml

Well, we have tried to fashion our actions in regard to
this problem according to what we considered to be our
obligations and responsibilities. What were those obligations
and responsibilities? The first was to protect and safeguard
the territory of India from every invasion. That is the primary
responsibility of the State. Secondly, it was our duty to
honoiir the pledge we gave to the people of Jammu and
Kashmir State. And that pledge was a two-fold pledge. We
were obliged to protect them from invasion and rape and
loot and arson and everything that accompanied that
invasion. That was the first part of the pledge. The second
part of the pledge was given by us unilaterally and wa to the
effect that it would be for the people to decide finally what
their future was to be. The third was to honour the assurances
we gave to the United Nations and the fourth was to work
for a peaceful settlement. That was not a pledge we had given
to anybody but one that was implied in the policy we had
tried to pursue right from the beginning. It is in the nature of
things that we should pursue a policy of peace, since we are
wedded to the ideals of peace. Apart fiom that, it was neces-
sary that we should do so because the world in which we live
appears to be on the edge of a precipice and one has to be very
careful in taking any step which might, perhaps, cause the
world to tumble over that precipice.

So, these were the four major considerations that we had
to keep in view and sometimes it was difficult to balance
them. Sometimes they seemed to lead in different directions.
It would have been an easy matter if all these factors had led
us to the same conclusion. But since they pulled in different
directions, our obligations and responsibilities lead us to
think not only of one line of action but of several. Then,
difficulties arose. Well, we have faced these difficulties and
we have sometimes had a hard time deciding what we
should do and what we should not do. I should like the
House, therefore, to think in terms of balancing these very
important assurances, pledges and the other factors in the
situation.

In the course of these years, I have repeatedly placed the
situation before this House and it is with the concurrence and

* — ii Drops

102

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-195S

support of this House that we have continued to pursue the
policy that we have pursued. It has been my belief that, in
this matter more than in others, the great majority of the
people of this country have approved of our policy. We have
had evidence of this approval from time to time in this House
and in the House that preceded it. We have received advice
from innumerable people, friends and critics in this country
and we have always welcomed that advice, even though some
of it did not appear to be feasible or right. We have also
received advice from innumerable people outside this country.
We welcome their advice, too, when it is friendly advice.
We do not welcome it when it comes from unfriendly minds
or is accompanied by threats or any hint of threats.

We took this matter to the United Nations four years and
eight months ago, in the belief that thereby we were serving
the cause of peace and in the hope that we would settle the
question of Kashmir by means of an agreement. We have not
settled it yet, in spite of the labours of the United Nations and
its various organs. I would like to repeat what I said on the
last occasion in this House when I paid a tribute to Dr Frank
Graham, who has shown enormous patience and enormous
perseverance in his pursuit of a peaceful settlement. So far as
we are concerned, we shall help him to the end, even though
people may get tired of our pursuing the same path. Peace is
always an ideal worth pursuing, however tired we may get in
the process. Many of our colleagues and friends in the country
have perhaps got weary of this process and I can very well
understand their weariness; but their weariness can hardly
compare with the weariness of those who are in charge of the
Kashmir affair. Day after day, week after week, month after
month, we have had to carry this heavy burden. However
weary we may have become, we dare not act in a hurry, we
dare not act in anger, we dare not allow ourselves to be led
by passion. The consequences of acting in passion are always
bad for an individual; but they are infinitely worse for a
nation. Therefore, we have restrained ourselves. We have
restrained ourselves even when loud cries of war and loud
threats havt reached us from across the border. We restrained
ourselves and I am glad to say that, generally speaking, our

LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE

10S

people and the press in this country also restrained them-
selves. I have great sympathy and understanding for those
who sometimes felt that we should do something more active
and throw off restraint: but I was sure then and I am sure
now that it would have been utterly wrong to do so. I am not
referring to any minor step here and there but rather to the
major trend of the policy that we pursued. We must keep
these four major obligations in our minds as we have done in
the past, even though we have put the matter before the
United Nations. Some friends have advised us to withdraw
it from the United Nations. I am not quite sure if thev have
studied this subject or considered how it is possible •> with-
draw this or any such matter from the United Natioi s, unless,
of course, we withdraw oursehcs from the United Nations.
The United Nations concerned itself with this matter at our
instance. And, in any case, if we had not brought the matter
to the United Nations, others might have done so. If we say,
‘we withdraw from the United Nations,’ wc shall only be
showing impatience and temper without achieving the results
that some people hope we will. Therefore, the question of
withdrawal from the United Nations does not arise, unless, of
course, this House wishes that the Government of India and
the Union of India itself should withdraw from the United
Nations. In the latter case, the House must be prepared to
face all the consequences of such an action. I presume that
the House does not wish this, just as I do not wish it.

I have ventured, in all humility, sometimes to criticize
those developments at the United Nations which seemed to
me to be out of keeping with its Charter and its past record
and professions. Nevertheless, I have believed and I do
believe that the United Nations, in spite of its many faults,
in spite of its having deviated from its aims somewhat, is,
nevertheless, a basic and fundamental thing in the structure
of the world today. Not to have it or to do away with it would
be a tragedy for the world. Therefore, I do not wish this
country of ours to do anything which weakens the gradual
development of some kind of a world structure. It may be
that the real world structure will not come in our lifetime but
unless that world structure comes, there is no hope for this

104

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

world, because the only alternative is world conflict on a
prodigious and tremendous scale. Therefore, it would be
wrong for us to do anything that weakens the beginnings of
a world structure, even though we may disagree with this
particular organization and even though we may sometimes
criticize it, as we have done. It is mainly for these reasons -that
I fail to understand this cry about our withdrawing the
Kashmir dispute from the United Nations. It is not like
withdrawing a case from one law court and taking it to
another. The United Nations is not to be considered merely
a forum dealing with the Kashmir question. The question
is before the nations of the world, whether they are united or
not and whether they are a forum or not. It is an international
matter and a matter which is in the minds of millions of men.
How can you withdraw it from the minds of millions of men?
Surely not by a legal withdrawal. The question does not
arise. We have to face the world; we have to face our people;
we have to face facts and we have to solve problems.

Some friends seem to imagine the easiest way to solve
the question is to have an exhibition of armed might. They
say, ‘Let us march our armies.’ That can never be a solution
in this case or in any other case. The more 1 live and the
more I grow in experience, the more convinced I become of
the futility and the wickedness of war as a means of solving
a problem. I consider it my misfortune that we even have to
spend money on armaments and that we have to keep
an army, a navy and an air force. In the world as it is consti-
tuted today, one is compelled to take those precautions. Any
person in a position of responsibility must take these
precautions and if we take them, we have to take them
adequately and effectively. Accordingly, we must keep a fine
army, a fine navy and a fine air force. That is so. But to think
in terms of throwing our brave men into warfare is not
something I indulge in, unless circumstances force my hands
as they forced my hands on a late evening in October 1947.
It was only after the most painful thought and consultation
that I decided upon our course of action. If I may say so in
all humility and without sacrilege, I did so after consulting
the Father of the Nation.

LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE

105

People say, ‘A part of the territory of India has been
invaded. It is held by the enemy. What are we doing to
defend that territory of India? We have failed in our
defence.’ Such statements would be perfectly justified; such
criticism of the Government would be legitimate to some
extent. It was and is our duty to push out the enemy from
every invaded part of the territory of India. That is where the
conflict between obligations and responsibilities really begins.

As the House knows, we decided right at the beginning
that we were agreeable to a plebiscite in which all the people
of Jammu and Kashmir State would take part. It was a
curious thing that in spite of having so decided, this war
should have continued. The war continued for fourteen
months or so — from the end of October 1947 to the end of
1948. It was for us to decide at the end of 1948 or the
beginning of 1949, whether we should carry this war on to
the bitter end and thereby recover the lost territory or
whether we should call a halt to active military operations
and try some other and more peaceful method. We decided
and, conditioned as we were, I submit we decided rightly to
put an end to active military operations and try other
methods. These other methods have not brought a solution in
their train thus far. And yet, I think it would be right to say
that the mere fact that an extraordinarily explosive situation,
such as the one that has existed in the State of Jammu and
Kashmir for the last few years, has been controlled is itself
no small achievement. We see in other parts of the world
how other countries have got more and more entangled in
all kinds of morasses and how the path of war becomes more
and more difficult. We had the courage -and, I say in all
humility, the wisdom to pull ourselves out of continuing an
unending war before it was too late, so that we might think
more calmly, more patiently, more wisely. Whether it has
yielded any result yet or not, the fact remains that we have
not been having a war for the last three and a half years
or so. This is not a bad result, although it may not be a
satisfactory solution.

Later, we declared that any further aggression or attack —
I say ’any further’ because there had been aggression and

106

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

aggression was continuing — or military operations in regard
to Kashmir would mean an all-out war not only in Kashmir
but elsewhere, too. That decision was not lightly taken but
after serious thought and careful consultation. We said it
knowing full well the consequences of what we said. We had
weighed the consequences and yet had come to that
conclusion. It was no threat but the statement of what was, to
our minds, an absolute fact. There could be no further attack
on Kashmir without this matter becoming a major war so
far as India was concerned. Having made that perfectly clear,
I think we succeeded in preventing many an attack that
might have taken place in the hope that the aggressors would
get away with it.

Two or three basic things follow from this. One is that, in
so far as the United Nations is concerned, we shall continue
unless this House decides to the contrary, to deal with it in
the manner in which we have done in the past. We have
tried our utmost to achieve a peaceful settlement without
giving in on any vital point or trying to evade any of our
responsibilities or obligations. We have resolved not to
dishonour the pledges we have given to the people of Kashmir
or to the people of India and, therefore, we shall pursue our
policy accordingly.

The House is aware that we accepted certain resolutions
of the United Nations and of the UN Commission that came
here. We accepted them, not because we iiked everything
about them but because in our earnest desire for a peaceful
settlement, we were willing to go to great lengths. Neverthe-
less, we made it perfectly clear that we would not by-pass
the pledges we had given or the responsibilities we had
undertaken. At a much later stage, another resolution was
passed by the Security Council which tried to impose an
arbitration on us. We rejected that resolution or that part of
it which was objectionable to us. It was one thing for us to
agree to a certain proposal after having weighed all the
consequences but we could not possibly give up our
responsibilities, pledges and assurances; we could not put
the matter in the hands of somebody else, whoever he might
be. We could never do that because we had our own duties

LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE

107

and obligations to consider. How could we hang the faith of
the four million people of Jammu and Kashmir State on the
decision of an arbitrator? Great political questions — and
this was a great political question — are not handed over in
this way to arbitrators from foreign countries. That is why
we had to reject this particular resolution of the United
Nations. We stand by that rejection and are not going to
agree to anything which prevents us from honouring the
pledges or the assurances we have given.

Subject to that, we shall go all out to seek a peaceful
settlement. Among the assurances and pledges that we have
given is the pledge which was implied in our policy, namely,
that the people of Jammu and Kashmir State would decide
their future. Let me be quite clear about this. There still
seems to be a good deal of misunderstanding about Kashmir’s
accession to India. The other day, I said in this House that
this accession was complete in law and in fact. Some people
and some newspapers, mostly newspapers abroad, seem to
think that it is only something that has happened in the last
week or fortnight or three weeks that has made this accession
complete. According to my views, this accession was complete
in law and in fact in October 1947. It is patent and no
argument is required, because every accession of every State
in India was complete on these very terms by September in
that year or a little later. All the States acceded in three
basic subjects, namely, foreign affairs, communications and
defence. Can anybody say that the accession of any State in
India was incomplete simply because they acceded in only
those three subjects? Of course not. It was a complete
accession in law and in fact. So was the accession of the
Jammu and Kashmir State, in law and in fact, by the end of
October. It is not open to doubt or challenge. I am surprised
that anybody here or elsewhere in the world should challenge
it. I was telling the House that when the first United Nations
Commission, accompanied by their legal advisers and others
came here, it was open to them to challenge it. But they did
not, because it was quite clear to them and to their legal
advisers that there could be no question about the legal
validity of the accession. So, while the accession was complete

108

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

in law and in fact, the other fact which has nothing to do
with law also remains, namely, our pledge to the people of
Kashmir — if you like, to the people of the world — that this
matter can be affirmed- again or cancelled by the people of
Kashmir according to their wishes. We do not want to win
people against their will and with the help of armed force;
and, if the people of Jammu and Kashmir State wish to part
company with us, they can go their way and we shall go ours.
We want no forced marriages, no forced unions. I hope this
great Republic of India is a free, voluntary, friendly and
affectionate union of the States of India. The people of
Jammu and Kashmir State not only agreed to come to us
as they did but it was at their request that we took them into
our large family of States. I do believe that they have the same
friendly feelings towards us as the other States have. I believe
that on repeated occasions they have given evidence of this
fact. Even in the election of this Constituent Assembly that
took place nearly a year ago, they exhibited that feeling of
friendship and union with India. I am personally convinced
that if at any time some other method of ascertaining their
feelings is decided upon, they will decide in the same way.
But that is my personal opinion; it may not be your opinion
or the House's opinion. The fact, however, remains that we
have said to them and to the world that we will give them a
chance to decide. We propose to stand by their ultimate
decision in this matter. Within the limits of these assurances
and pledges, we shall continue to pursue the policy that we
have decided upon.

A short while ago, we met the representatives of the
Government of Kashmir and they were not merely the
representatives of the Government but, undoubtedly, the
popular leaders of the people of Kashmir. We met them, we
talked to them and we discussed many matters with them.
We did not go to them in a bargaining spirit or. in a spirit of
opposition. We discussed matters with them, with a view to
solving our intricate problems, with a view to unravelling the
knots and with a view to finding some way which would fit
in with the various assurances that we had exchanged and
with the policies they stood for and we stood for. Many of

OUR PLEDGE TO KASHMIR

109

these policies were, of course, common to both. I placed the
agreements we arrived at before this House on the last
occasion. It is obvious that these agreements are not a final
solution. Much has still to be done; much has to be thought
out. But two or three facts remain. One is that, in the nature
of things at the present moment, it is necessary to consider the
case of Jammu and Kashmir State on a somewhat different
footing from the other States in India. This is inevitable
because Kashmir has become an international issue in the last
few years. A different footing does not mean any special right
or privilege except in the sense that it may mean a greater
measure of internal autonomy. It is a developing, dvnamic
situation. One may gradually change it more and more but
it is not right for us under the existing circumstances to try to
do something by mental coercion or by pressure of some other
kind. That would defeat our object and that would, indeed,
be playing into the hands of those who criticize us.

OUR PLEDGE TO KASHMIR

I must express my gratitude to the many hon. Members
who, in the course of this debate, have spoken generously
about the policy that the Government has pursued in regard
to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. While we have had an
abundance of generous acknowledgement of our policy, we
have had criticism also. I welcome the latter, because it is
always helpful in understanding a particular position. In
this very difficult and delicate matter, criticism will be
especially helpful, because the more aspects we examine the
more light will be thrown upon the problem.

We have dealt with this matter for nearly five years now.
We have fought on the battlefield for over a year and many of

Speech in the House of the People, New Delhi, August 7, 1952

no

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195*

our brave young men have gone to Kashmir and remained
there. We have fought this fight in many a Chancellery of
the World and in the United Nations; but above all, we have
fought this fight in human hearts — the hearts of the men
and women of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. With all
deference to this Parliament, I would like to say that the
ultimate decision will be made in the minds and hearts of the
men and women of Kashmir and not in this Parliament or
at the United Nations. We have dealt with the problem of
Kashmir in a variety of ways in various fields of action. We
have not, however, solved it, although we have made progress
in a particular direction. I want to be perfectly frank with
this House and promise no speedy solution. Why should I
make promises which I might not be able to keep? And
may I remind this House that there are numerous problems
today, big problems, affecting the world’s future which
remain unsolved, which drag on from month to month and
year to year without solution? One has to be thankful if
these problems do not grow worse. That itself is supposed to
be a great mercy and a blessing. It is all very well for people
in foreign countries to say, ‘Why don’t you solve this question
of Kashmir? It may lead to big things, perhaps, to a world
conflict.’ Many people in foreign countries are generous with
their advice. One feels tempted to tell them that they also
have vital problems to solve, whether it is in the Far East or
in Europe or elsewhere and that their problems also some-
how drag on from year to year. Why do they not find a
solution to these before offering advice to us? How is it that
we are at fault because we cannot solve the question of
Kashmir while they, who censure us, are above reproach,
though they fail to solve their problems? Not only do their
problems remain unsolved but preparations are also made to
create problems for the future. Anyhow, this would be a
cheap reply for us to make to them, because we are all in
difficulties; we are all struggling against things which, perhaps,
are not entirely within the control of any one country or any
one people.

I should like this House to continue to consider this
problem as it has been considered in the past, that is, in all

OUR PLEDGE TO KASHMIR

111

its aspects, forgetting for the moment the minor things, the
lawyer’s points if 1 may so call them with all respect to
lawyers. The latter certainly have their place, provided they
keep it. My honourable friend, Dr Mookerjee, has said a
great deal about this clause and that clause. If I have the
■time I shall deal with the points he has raised but it is of
iittle importance what this clause or that clause says. What
is important is the way you approach the problem and its
fundamental basis. It is also important what your objective
really is and how you propose to gain it. If it is your objective
— as I shall claim it should be, for there can be no other —
that this problem must be decided by the people of Kashmir
then you must adopt a policy by which that end can be
gained. Why issue threats? Why talk to them and tell them
they must do this or must not do that? I am called a
Kashmiri in the sense that ten generations ago my people
came down from Kashmir to India. That is not the bond I
have in mind when I think of Kashmir but other bonds
which have tied us much closer. These bonds have grown
much more in the last five years or so. When I talk of my
ties with Kashmir, I am only a symbol of the vast number of
people in India who have been bound together with Kashmir
in these five years of conflict against a common adversary.
First of all, let me say clearly that we accept the basic
proposition that the future of Kashmir is going to be decided
finally by the goodwill and pleasure of her people. The
goodwill and pleasure of this Parliament is of no importance
in this matter, not because this Parliament does not have
the strength to decide the question of Kashmir but because
any kind of imposition would be against the principles that
the Parliament upholds.

Having come to the conclusion that the future of Jammu
and Kashmir State can ultimately be decided only by the
people of Jammu and Kashmir, let us fashion our other
policies accordingly and let us not find fault with every little
thing because it does not fit in with our wishes. Manv things
have happened in Jammu and Kashmir which I do not
approve of; but there it is. I have no doubt many things have
happened and will happen that neither my honourable

112

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

friend on the Opposite side of the House nor I will approve
of, just as many things happen in the rest of India that I do
not approve of. I do not control everything that happens in
India. But what is our approach going to be? Whatever it
is, we must not do anything which will counter it or under-
mine it or uproot it and which will encourage the hands of
those who aie opposed to us — our enemies. That is the basic
thing which we must understand. Let us be clear about it.
You can criticize Sheikh Abdullah. Sheikh Abdullah is no
god. He commits many errors and will commit many more.
He is a brave man and a great leader of his people. That is a
big enough thing. He has led his people through weal and
woe and he has led them when they were facing grave
disaster. He did not shrink from leadership at that time —
that is a big enough thing to be said about any man. If he
has failings, if he has made a mistake here and there, if he has
delivered a speech which we do not like, what of that?
Bigness is bigness in spite of a hundred mistakes. And in any
case, the question is not whether we like Sheikh Abdullah
or not. It is a bigger matter than any individual.

The question of Kashmir, as this House well knows,
certainly has not been for us a question of territory. Finan-
cially, we gain nothing from it. On the contrary, it may cost
us a good deal until the State ultimately develops; and it is
bound to develop because it is rich in resources. Nevertheless,
we have not cast covetous eyes upon Kashmir or hoped for
any gain. We have cast eyes on Kashmir because of old
bonds, because of old sentiments and new sentiments also
Kashmir is very close to our minds and hearts and if by
some decree or adverse fortune Kashmir ceases to be a part
of India, it will be a wrench and a pain and torment for us.
If, however, the people of Kashmir do not wish to remain
with us, let them go by all means; we will not keep them
against their will, however painful it may be to us. That is the
policy that India will pursue and it is precisely because
India stands for such a policy that people will not leave her.
People will cleave to her and come to her. Our strongest
bonds with Kashmir are not those that are retained by our
Army or even by our Constitution to which so much reference

OUR PLEDGE TO KASHMIR US

has been made but those of love and affection and under-
standing and they are stronger than the Constitution or laws
or armies.

Many of the arguments that some hon. Members of the
Opposition have advanced seem to me to be inapplicable.
It is easy to criticize many things that have happened in
Kashmir. It is natural that one should want to better certain
things but that is a different matter altogether. The question
is whether in doing so you are coming nearer your aim or
being an obstacle in the way of your very objective. The
hon. Member who spoke last is a representative — much
more so than I am — of a minority community of Srinagar,
the Kashmiri pandits. He gave you a graphic account of the
days when everybody in the Valley of Kashmir — Muslim
or Hindu but more especially the Hindus and the Sikhs —
lived in terror of what the morrow might bring. Nobody
knew what would happen or, perhaps, they knew too well.
The people of Kashmir, especially the women of Kashmir,
have a great reputation outside Kashmir also. The women of
Kashmir, both Hindu and Muslim, were taken away in
considerable number by the raiders and others, sometimes
as far as Afghanistan and even beyond. There are cases where
these women were sold for a mere pittance. Hon. Members
should try to understand how these stories and these accounts
must have affected the people of Kashmir, how they must
have lived in fear lest their own mothers, sisters and wives
should suffer a similar fate on the morrow. It must be
recognized that the people of Kashmir have lived through
fire and have faced it; they did not run away from it.

Looking back at these five years, I think that the people
of Kashmir, the people of India and, if I may say so with all
humility, the Government of India have stuck to the right
path in spite of numerous small mistakes that they may have
made. We have pursued the policy we considered right even
when it appeared most inopportune; sometimes our attitude
displeased certain people; sometimes a little swerving to the
right or to the left would have gained us an advantage in
foreign countries — and foreign countries had begun to count
for us. It did not matter much what we thought of them;

114

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

but there they were, sitting in the Security Council and
talking a great deal. Sometimes they talked sense; at others
they did not. We had to put up with their attempts to judge
us and to judge something which was so important to us.
Kashmir was not important to us because of any territorial
designs on our part as somebody suggested but for the other
reasons that I have mentioned. People in other countries
thought of Kashmir merely as a geographical unit. It was
only a plaything for them while it was very much in our
hearts. Our history and our circumstances had made
Kashmir so closely associated with our feelings, emotions,
thoughts and passions that it was a part of our beings.
Certain foreign countries tried to deal with the Kashmir
question in a casual way and talked of India’s imperialism
and her territorial designs. We restrained ourselves but
very often there was anger in our hearts — anger at this
intolerant criticism, at the presumptuous way in which
people talked to us, to this great country of India. They
had the audacity to talk of imperialism to us when they
were imperialists themselves and were carrying on their own
wars and themselves preparing for future wars. Just because
India tried to protect Kashmir from territorial invasion,
people had the temerity to talk of India’s imperialism!

Well, as I said, we restrained ourselves and we shall still
endeavour to restrain ourselves in future but restraint does
not mean weakness. It does not mean giving in. We were
firm and convinced of the rightness of our position because,
as I said — and I said it in all honesty — I have searched my
heart and looked into every single step I have taken in the
matter of Kashmir but cannot find that any of the major
steps we have taken has been wrong. Although it is my
Government that is ultimately responsible for the part
India has played, I have been personally concerned with every
single step taken during the last five years. Of course, in
retrospect, there are things that I could have done differently
— some minor things — but I do not see how any major step
we have taken could have been taken in a way other than
in which it was done. When we sent our young men flying
over the mountains to Kashmir at the end of October 1947,

OUR PLEDGE TO KASHMIR

115

there may have been a miscalculation; but it was
fundamentally a right step demanded by circumstances.
We may have erred sometimes because we were anxious to
preserve peace and to avoid war at all costs; but I would
always like to err in that way. For people to accuse us of
avarice or covetousness, of imperialism, of breaking our word
and pledge, is grossly unfair. I have said before and I repeat
that every single step we have taken has had conviction
behind it, every single word or pledge we have given to the
United Nations or to the United Nations Commission or
to anybody else who has come here has been kept to the
letter and every single assurance has been carried out. All
this is much more than can be said for Pakistan in this matter,
because the entire Kashmir business is based on a
fundamental lie — the lie Pakistan has told in denying that
she invaded Kashmir. If Pakistan wants Kashmir, let her
go there and fight. But why lie about it? The armies of
Pakistan were in Kashmir for six months and then they
denied the whole thing. When you base a case on a lie, the
lie has to be repeated; and it was repeated in the Security
Council month after month. Their armies were still in
Kashmir and their Foreign Minister went on saying that
they were not there. That was an astonishing thing. When
the United Nations Commission was here and was on the
point of going to the front and when there was no possibility
of concealing this fact any longer, they admitted it. They
had to admit it and a statement was submitted by the
Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan army who was a well-
known British Officer. The statement was to the effect that
he had been compelled, in the interests of protecting Pakistan,
to send his armies — the Pakistan armies — into Kashmir.
He was afraid that India was going to invade Pakistan across
Kashmir from somewhere in Central Asia I

That was the beginning of the extraordinary story of
Kashmir and it is as well that it is repeated again and again,
because people are apt to forget it. This matter has become
international and is talked about in the various capitals of
the world. This simple story, these simple facts of invasion,
of brigandage, loot and arson are forgotten and passed over

116

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-19SS

casually while other discussions lake place. It has been an
amazing education for many of us these five years: education
in world politics, education in how nations can behave,
education in how great countries get distorted vision and
cannot see straight in the simplest matter when it so suits
them. Perhaps, I am talking a little beyond my present brief.
To come back to the future of Kashmir, I want to stress that
it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of
Kashmir. It is not that we have merely said that to the
United Nations and to the people of Kashmir; it is our convic-
tion and one that is borne out by the policy we have pursued,
not only in Kashmir but everywhere. Though these five
years have meant a lot of trouble and expense and in spite of
all we have done, we would willingly leave Kashmir if it was
made clear to us that the people of Kashmir wanted us to go.
However sad we may feel about leaving, we are not going
to stay against the wishes of the people. We are not going
to impose ourselves on them at the point of the bayonet.

Of course, this does not mean that we are prepared to do
what we consider wrong if the people of Kashmir should
desire it. If they want us to do something wrong in Kashmir,
we shall refuse to do it. We may even say, ‘We would rather
not have any association with Kashmir than have the wrong
kind of association.’ That is certainly conceivable. Nobody
can force on us an association we do not want just as we
cannot remain in Kashmir against the will of the people. An
association is a matter of mutual understanding and affection,
it is a voluntary union of parties who wish to have ties with
each other. In our desire to gain the goodwill of the people of
Kashmir, we cannot afford to provoke the ill-will of our own
people. We are not considering this matter as a bargain or as
a matter between strangers. We are almost a part of each
other and are considering a difficult and delicate problem
together as partners in order to try and find a way out. The
way out may not be completely logical; it may not be
completely reasonable from the point of view of this law
or that constitution; but if it is effective, then it is a good
way out.

I should like to say one more thing in this connection

OUR PLEDGE TO KASHMIR

117

although it is, perhaps, not to the point. I am afraid of saying
it because there are so many lawyers here. When the British
left, there was a good deal of misunderstanding about the
situation that was created in India by the Partition and
because of the statement about the Indian States issued by
the United Kingdom. I shall venture to put forward my
own view, functioning, for the moment, as a jurist and a
constitutional lawyer. The Partition took away a certain
part of India with our consent; but the rest of India, including
the States, remained as a continuing entity. Till something
happened to separate the States from India th'ey were a part
of India. We were not created by partition as Pakistan was.
India was, India remained, India is, India will be. So every
State, till it arrived at a decision to the contrary, would
continue to have the old relationship with India.

By the removal of the British power from India in 1947,
we were, to some extent, thrown back to the days when the
British first came. That is an interesting and good parallel to
pursue in other ways, too; but I shall not pursue it, because it
may lead to controversial matters. When the British power
established itself in India, it became evident that no other
power in India could remain independent. Of course, these
powers could remain semi-independent or as protectorates or
in some other subordinate capacity. Accordingly, the Princely
States were gradually brought under the domain and
suzerainty of the British power. Similarly, when the British
left India, it was just as impossible for old bits of Indian
territory to remain independent as it had been during their
regime. At that time Pakistan was, of course, out of the
picture. For the rest, it was inevitable that the princes and
others, whoever they might be and whether they wanted it
or not, must acknowledge the suzerainty of the sovereign
domain of the Republic of India. Therefore, the fact that
Kashmir did not immediately decide whether to accede to
Pakistan or to India did not make Kashmir independent for
the intervening period. Since she was not independent, it
was our responsibility as the continuing entity to see that
Kashmir’s interests were protected. I wish to say this, because
it was undeniably our duty to come to Kashmir’s aid,

9— 11 DPD/65

118

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

irrespective of whether she had acceded to India or not. On
account of the continuing entity, India’s responsibility to all
the other States remained unchanged except in the case of
those that had definitely and deliberately parted company.

The word ‘monarchy’ has been used a good deal. I do not
understand in what sense it was used. We have no monarchs
in India. I understand the meaning of the word ‘monarchy’
but it does not apply in the present case. I do not know
why such words should be employed unless the aim is to
delude us. There are some persons who, by the generosity of
our States Ministry, are still called ‘rulers.’ I do not know
why, because they rule nobody. Our States Ministry in the
last three or four years has been known for its generosity
and I am afraid we shall suffer for that generosity for a
long time to come.

There is no monarchy in India. In certain places there are
princely families who have unnecessarily large endowments.
They hope to live on these endowments for generations Co
come. There are also a few Rajpramukhs. At the moment,
we have three States that are headed by Rajpramukhs; in
some instances, there are groups of States and one of the
ex-rulers has been chosen to be Rajpramukh for life.

Some of the Rajpramukhs are, undoubtedly, excellent
people; others are not quite so excellent. It is true that the
idea of giving tenure to a person in a responsible office for
life is not entirely in keeping with modern thought. One
must remember the particular context .of events and not be
too critical of what was done. When this step was taken,
hundreds and hundreds of States had to be absorbed into
India within a few weeks. At that time, a number of princes
might well have given a lot of trouble; in fact, some were on
the point of giving major trouble. Some did give trouble
secretly. When our other troubles came, some of these
princes and their families and cousins and uncles did a lot of
harm and injury by giving money and guns to gangs of
rowdies to go about creating mischief.

That was the position: there were hundreds and hundreds
of independent States in India, which were uncertain of their
future, afraid of their own people, afraid of the Government

OUR PLEDGE TO KASHMIR

119

of India and left in the lurch by the protecting hand of the
British power. We could have decided many things at that
time. We could have decided, if you like, to remove them
completely from the scene or to come to terms with them
and buy immediate peace in a moment of grave peril to the
country. It is very well for us to be wise after the event but I
think Sardar Patel acted very wisely. There was great danger
that India might go to pieces under the stress and strain of
the passions raised by the Partition, the huge killings all over
the country and the communal atrocities. The reactionary
jagirdari and feudal elements threw themselves into the
picture just to create trouble and disruption and in the hope
that they could enlarge their domain in the general confusion.
It was foolish of them to hope that; nevertheless, that is how
their minds worked. In such circumstances, one had to take a
decision. Chiefly Sadar Patel and partly all of us arrived at
the decision that it was better to consolidate India rapidly,
even though it cost a great deal of money, than to let waste-
ful fratricidal warfare and disturbances continue. Apart
from other things, even from the point of view of cost, the
latter would prove to be more costly in the long run, besides
leaving a trail of bitterness. Therefore, we made certain
rapid settlements which, financially or otherwise, were
hardly fair; but this was the price we had decided to pay
for the quick settlement of a very difficult and vital problem.

I shall not go into the details of how we propose to deal
with these matters in future. Obviously, such matters will
have to be dealt with in a friendly spirit because what happens
in one place undoubtedly has its reactions and repercussions
in another. What is happening or is likely to happen in
Kashmir is bound to have its reactions elsewhere.

The honourable Dr Mookerjee also referred to Article
352. He said a great deal about it and asked me whether
certain other articles dealing with financial chaos or emer-
gency and with the breaking down of the Constitution would
be applied in this case. I shall answer him. At present, we
are not applying those articles. We have not even put them
forward for consideration. I would beg the House to
remember that we have to proceed on the basis laid down

120

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

by that stout builder of our nation, Sardar Patel. At the time
our new Constitution was being finalized, the question of
Kashmir came up and was dealt with in Article 370 of the
Constitution. I would ask the hon. Member to read Article
370, because if he discusses this question now, he must do so
on the basis of the Article which had been agreed upon and
which is a part of the Constitution we have given ourselves.

It is true, as has been pointed out, that the Article in
question was not a final and absolute provision. That Article
itself was a transitional one. But it laid down the method of
decision in the future. It laid down the mode of procedure and
prescribed the manner in which additions could be made to
the subjects. Altogether, there were two classes of subjects.
One related to the three major subjects or rather to the three
categories of subjects, namely, defence, communications and
foreign affairs. If any change was to be made in the inter-
pretations of these, the President was to do it in consultation
with the Kashmir Government or the Constituent Assembly
of Kashmir. In regard to the other subjects, the words used
are “with the concurrence of” and not “in consultations
with.”

Why, then, should anybody complain that we are going
outside the Constitution, that we or the people or the Govern-
ment of Kashmir are committing a breach of the
Constitution? It may well be that the Government of
Kashmir will ask us to do something which we do not
consider proper. In that case, it only remains for us to talk
to each other and find a way which both consider proper. If
we fail to arrive at an agreement, then, of course, that thing
cannot be done and the consequences have to be faced. The
consequences may not be agreeable to them or to us but
there is no other way. There is no question — as some of the
amendments of hon. Members seem to imply— of our issuing
some kind of decree or sending a compulsory order. I do
submit that we have approached this matter and we shall
always approach this matter in a spirit of friendship because
we have to remember that there are many aspects to this
question, both external and internal. The internal aspect is
at present the responsibility of the Kashmir Government.

OUR PLEDGE TO KASHMIR

121

The activities in that part of Kashmir which is called ‘Azad’
Kashmir — wrongly so, since it is under Pakistan — have an
effect on other countries. Foreign countries naturally have
an effect on India and so on. There are so many aspects to
the problem that you just cannot look at it from your own
point of view only. It may be that the people of K ashmir
have a particular aspect in view which you have not consider-
ed. It is possible that you may be convinced if you consider
it. Dr Mookerjee complained that he was not consulted about
certain things. Surely, Dr Mookerjee will not expect Sheikh
Abdullah or a member of this Government, in the course of
important talks, to be constantly consulting others. It is
impossible; it cannot be done. Apart from those who had a
particular commission in connection with this matter, even
the members of my Cabinet were consulted only alter the
talks were over. Sheikh Abdullah was anxious to meet the
Members of the Opposition. He did not have the advantage
of meeting Dr Mookerjee but he did meet his colleague, Mr
Chatterjee, and he had a two-hour talk with him. I was not
present at the talk but Mr Chatterjee was good enough to
write to me and inform me that he had been influenced by
what Sheikh Abdullah had told him. He further said that
he now realized that there were many aspects which had not
been put before him earlier.

I should like to refer to Article 352 which deals with the
proclamation of emergency. It reads as follows: “If the
President is satisfied that a grave emergency exists whereby
the security of India or of a part of the territory thereof is
threatened, whether by war or external aggression or internal
disturbance, he may, by Proclamation make a declaration to
that effect....”

In a sense, the President can do all manner of things,
including taking charge of the whole State. What we
suggested and agreed upon in these talks was that where
there was a reference to internal disturbances, this action
should be taken with the concurrence of the Government
concerned and that such concurrence was not necessary in
case of aggression or war. Undoubtedly, that is a varia-
tion in favour of that Government and hon. Members are

122

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

entitled to criticize it. Will hon. Members kindly recall the
basis from which we started? We start from Article 370 for
the present moment. Article 370 rules out Article 352 and
all the other articles. That is to say, at the present
moment, keeping strictly to the Constitution as it is appli-
cable to Kashmir State, none of these provisions apply. So
that, all we have said in regard to the Supreme Court or to
the President’s other powers, is new and must be included in
the Constitution of Kashmir. The supremacy of the President
or this Parliament or Supreme Court only applies to Kashmir
to the extent to which they accept it. It is not as though we
were giving away something. We have very specifically laid
down this very important provision of the Constitution, that
the President can take charge of the whole State itself under a
grave emergency. This should apply to the State of Jammu
and Kashmir except in the case of internal disturbance, when
the concurrence of the Government of Kashmir is necessary.
This seems very odd and some people say, ‘How can you ask
or wait for their concurrence?’ It is not really such an odd
provision; because when the whole State is in a chaos, then
nobody waits for anybody’s concurrence and the necessary
steps are taken. The particular phraseology of the Article is
taken from the American Constitution, where the Federal
Government can take charge of the State in an emergency
with the concurrence of the State Government. Undoubtedly,
it is open to hon. Members to criticize this; but there is
nothing very odd or very special about it and. in the circum-
stances, we felt that it was better for us to accept this form
rather than none.

The fact that we have been considering these provisions,
whether they are emergency provisions or they concern the
President’s special powers or Parliament’s powers in a certain
domain or the Supreme Court, is surely an indication as to
where sovereignty lies. I am, perhaps, being rash; but I am
talking about the Constitution and legal matters. Obviously,
in a federal constitution, federal sovereignty is divided
between the Federal Centre and the States. In a moment of
crisis, however, sovereignty may vest with the Federation or
Centre. 1 see that the Law Minister apparently does not

OUR PLEDGE TO KASHMIR

12S

agree. I am not quite sure but whatever the case, it is a small
matter. Whether sovereignty is to be divided or not in a
Federation is an old argument.

I started with the presumption that it is for the people of
Kashmir to decide their own future. We will not compel
them. In that sense, the people of Kashmir are sovereign.
They are not sovereign in the sense that they cannot accept
the Constitution and then break it. They cannot enter into
a partnership with us and accept that part of our Constitution
over which we are sovereign and then try to evade it. But
they are sovereign in the sense that they may accept the
whole or reject the whole; or they may come to an agreement
with us on particular matters that they do not want to accept
along with our Constitution.

I have taken a lot of time and I hope the House vill for-
give me for it. In a few days, my colleague, Mr Gopalaswamy
Ayyangar, will be leaving for Geneva. I will not be very
truthful if I say that I expect great things to happen; but we
have to carry on with the rough and the smooth of it and not
run away from it. Our good wishes go with him but, above
all, our good wishes should go to the people of Jammu and
Kashmir State, who have become the plaything of inter-
national politics and even of our debates.

INDIA AND PAKISTAN

WE CANNOT BE ENEMIES FOR EVER

S ir, as the House is aware, this debate on the President’s
Address is a new departure and we have no conventions to
guide us in the matter. This new Republic must make its
own conventions. I have followed this debate and we as the
Government have welcomed and will always welcome
opportunities when hon. Members can criticize the Govern-
ment or express their opinions about the various activities of
the Government. But I have noticed that, in the course of
this discussion, a large number of matters have been raised;
in fact, the discussion has been, to some extent, on the lines of
the normal budget discussion.

Now, it is not for me, Sir, to limit the discussion in any
way or to restrict it but I would suggest certain things for
your consideration and for the consideration of the House.
The essential nature of this debate at the beginning of the
session is to give an opportunity to the Opposition in the
House to raise major questions of policy, in fact, to raise
something which is tantamount to a vote of no confidence by
the House. A new House or a new Government or a Govern-
ment meeting in a new session, naturally wants to give an
opportunity to the House to decide then and there whether it
approves of that Government and its major lines of policy or
not. If, instead of that, we have a debate on a large number
of minor issues, the major issues are obscured and the
principal object of such a debate is, therefore, not served.
There is, of course, a difficulty in this House as the Opposi-
tion is numerically very small and it is, therefore, right and
fair that some latitude should be given.

There are one or two relatively small matters to which I
shall also refer right at the beginning. One or two hon.

Reply to debate on the President's Address in Parliament, New Delhi,
February 3, 1950

WE CANNOT BE ENEMIES FOR EVER

125

Members of this House complained that a sufficient number
of women have not been returned to the House. Although that
is not a matter which concerns Government policy, I would
like to express my entire concurrence with that complaint
and my firm opinion that women have not been given a fair
deal in this country. Further, in future, it will be a matter of
serious-' consequence to this country and to this House as to
whether a sufficient number of women are returned or not.
May I add that in the experience we have had in regard to
the appointment of women in our delegations to foreign
countries as well as in appointments made by the United
Nations itself, I cannot think of a single instance whc»e the
appointment has not justified itself? I can, howe\er, think
of many instances where appointments of men have not been
justified. Speaking from a good deal of experience, I can tell
this House that women, who have gone abroad in our dele-
gations and for other work, have, each one of them, raised
the credit of India and left a good impression wherever they
have gone.

My friend, the hon. Mr Tyagi, took exception to the cere-
monial that was observed when the President came in. He
thought that it was too English and that we should have
conches or some other ancient instrument blowing when he
came in. Whether he meant it seriously or not, I do not
know; but it does raise an interesting point for the considera-
tion of this House. We are anxious to have our own customs
and our own ceremonials in India. When we adopt a certain
practice or ceremonial which comes from foreign countries,
I suppose, it has a certain meaning. Both in our Constitution
and in our judicial system, we have very largely followed the
practice of foreign countries and more especially that of the
British Parliament. Would the hon. Member, who
complained, like us to have armies after the model of the
Mahabharata and use weapons which were used five hundred
years ago? I say this because there is a tendency in this
country to support obscurantism in the name of nationalism.
We often seem to confuse the great things of the past with its
minor trappings. There is thus the danger that the great
things may suffer while the minor trappings flourish. There-

126

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

fore, we must be careful in these matters. India suffered
enough in the past by being caught up in the minor trappings.
India became a slave country because she did not keep pace
with the world. If we forget that lesson today, we shall fall
back again. Nationalism is a great and vital force and, if we
give up any part of the genius of our people and the basic
traditions of our people, we lose a great deal thereby; we
become rootless. At the same time, nationalism often covers
a multitude of sins and a multitude of things that are dead
and gone. What is communalism after all? In its very essence
it is a throwback to a medieval state of mind, medieval habits
and medieval slogans. Let us, by all means, preserve every
single Indian custom and every Indian way of thought; only,
let us not go back to something that has no relevance to the
modern world. The President came in. There was no blowing
of trumpets. Does Mr Tyagi object to people walking in step?
Does any hon. Member object to military officers accom-
panying our President? Does the hon. Member object to our
military officers wearing the uniform they had on? Does he
expect them to go about in the dress I am wearing today or
in the dress some hon. Members are wearing?

The President will come again. The President will come
accompanied by his ADCs and military officers. If the ADCs
and military officers are to accompany the President, are
they to wear special military uniforms? Is our Army to put
on a different uniform? One has to think about these things.
We can and we should consider what new customs should
we introduce anything that stands for aloofness and sloppiness,
the bane of this country, which leads inevitably to ineffi-
ciency and many other evils? We live in an age where we
have to be efficient, whether it is on the political, economic
or any other plane. I admit that, in many ways, the Govern-
ment ought to be more efficient but you cannot expect
efficiency to rise as Phoenix out of the ashes in an inefficient
environment.

I think it was my friend Mr Tyagi who said that we
should have a government of revolutionaries. I should very
much like to know what his definition of a revolutionary is.

WE CANNOT BE ENEMIES FOR EVER

127

since a revolutionary has been defined in many ways. In the
old days, revolutionary activity was normally defined as
activity directed against the foreign Government. At a time
when we had to oppose a foreign imperialistic government,
this was understandable. There, too, there may be a difference
of opinion, for a man may take to the bomb and call himself
a. revolutionary, although his action may actually be counter-
revolutionary in terms of the true mechanics of revolution.
Yet, by a strange misuse of language, a bomb-thrower has
been called a revolutionary. Now that the foreign Govern-
ment is gone, we are facing other problems. What is the test
of revolution now? Many of the people, who were prc' iously
revolutionaries in the old sense of the word, are nc longer
revolutionaries in its modern sense. In fact, some of them may
actually be classed as reactionaries. In fact, because a person
has been a revolutionary during the British regime, it does
not necessarily follow that he is a revolutionary today. Take
the communists, for instance. They were our colleagues for
some time. Today, they are following an anti-social policy of
destruction and sabotage; and yet they were revolutionaries
once. There are others, too, who do not oppose us on the
political plane but on the economic plane. Indeed, how many
views there are on the economic plane! It is, therefore, not
easy to call a man a revolutionary without knowing how to
define the term.

We had to make an attempt to lower the prices of basic
necessities, especially food. We could not afford to take the
slightest risk because anti-social people would profit by it. It
is a dangerous thing to play about with the food crisis. How-
ever, these are matters for careful consideration by the
Government and by this House.

Now to come to the issues of foreign policy. It is clear that
there has been very little criticism of our foreign policy except
in so far as it applied to Pakistan. I would like to say that the
record of our foreign policy, in the two and a half years since
we attained independence, is a very satisfactory one, judged
by the status of the nation in international affairs. There is
no doubt that, for a variety of reasons, India's reputation
in international affairs is high. We have adopted, as the

128

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

House knows, a policy which has been described as one of
neutrality or non-alignment. I dislike the word ‘neutrality’
because there is a certain passivity about it and our policy is
not passive. Why we are criticized as sitting on the fence or as
siding with this or that group, I do not quite understand.
A country’s foreign policy ultimately emerges from its own
traditions, urges, objectives and, more particularly, from
its recent past. India is being powerfully affected by her recent
past. We were laying down the basis of our foreign policy
even when we were opposing the British Government during
the last twenty or thirty years. I submit that within the limits
of a changing situation, we have tried to follow that policy.
It seems to me extraordinarily presumptuous on anybody's
part to ask me to join this or that bloc. Is my country so small,
so insignificant, so lacking in worth or strength, that it cannot
say what it wants to say, that it must say ditto to this or that?
Why should my policy be the policy of this country or that
country? It is going to be my policy, the Indian policy and
my country’s policy.

It is true that no policy can be viewed in isolation. We
co-operate with other countries and we seek the co-operation
of others. We have our likes and dislikes. In regard to our
likes, they help us to co-operate; but in regard to our dislikes,
they come in the way. Indeed, we tone down our dislikes
deliberately because we want to be friendly with other
countries.

We see that the world today is blinded by fear and hatred.
It is an extraordinary situation and it is becoming more
and more difficult for countries to take an objective view of
any subject or problem. This enveloping fear and hatred lead
them to violence and war. What it will ultimately lead to, I
cannot say. I still think it possible that grave disasters and
catastrophes might be avoided for the world, not by the
efforts of India alone but also by enlisting the aid of earnest
people of goodwill in other parts of the world, who think
likewise.

Whatever the consequences of another war may be, it is
dead certain — and it is terrible to contemplate — that in
every country and in every part of the world most things

At the Central Fuel Research Institute, Jealgora , April 1950
Visit to a coal mine in Bihar , April 1950

Gntng away prizes to umners in a children's painting , di awing
and writing competition organized by a Delhi weekly

dddieswig Ihr Indonesian Parliament at I)}akai f a
during his usit to Jndoiuua , June 1 9^0

W ith President boekamo oj Indonesia , driving
through the crowded streets of Djakarta

With the British Primi Minister Mr ( lemint ittlee and other ( ommmwealth Prime
Ministers at the (ommamuaHh ( nfamt held in London m januaiy 1951

WE CANNOT BE ENEMIES FOR EVER

129

that we value in life will vanish. Whether you call yourself a
communist, a socialist or any other ‘ist,’ you cannot let the
very basis of progress and civilized existence be destroyed
for a whole generation or more. Of course, some third or
fourth generation may be able to arise from the ashes of that
war but any person who thinks at all earnestly must come
to the conclusion that every effort must be made to prevent
this great catastrophe overwhelming the world.

I am not so vain as to imagine that any efforts on the part
of our Government will make a great difference to world
affairs. Yet, every little effort counts and, in any event, I do
not see why our efforts should not be in that direction and
why we should take for granted that war is inevitable and
give up all attempts to prevent it. This, therefore, is t’ue aim
of our foreign policy.

Some hon. Members criticized our association with the
Commonwealth of Nations. May I beg the House or those
Members who object to it to dissociate this question from
past sentiment? I do feel that it is the past sentiment that
governs them more than the present situation. Presumably,
some people imagine that our association with the Common-
wealth imposes some kind of restricting or limiting factor
upon our activities, be they political, economic, foreign,
domestic or anything else. That impression is completely
unfounded. In the case of the United Nations or the Inter-
national Monetary Fund, some limiting factors certainly come
in, as they must, if we join an international organization
of that type; but in our association with the Commonwealth,
there is not the least vestige of such a limiting factor.

As the House well knows, this is not a constitutional
issue; it is in the nature of a gentleman’s agreement between
the countries of the Commonwealth which we entered into
deliberately and after serious thought because we felt that
this relationship was to our advantage.

I think an hon. Member said something about devalua-
tion. Whether devaluation was good or bad has nothing to
do with our membership of the Commonwealth. We may
carry out any policy we like regardless of whether we are in
the Commonwealth or not. When people think of the

ISO JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

Commonwealth influencing us in our policies, may I suggest
to them the possibility that we may also greatly influence
others in the right direction?

Then, a reference was made to countries like South
Africa whose policy brings them into conflict with us in the
various phases of our activities. Questions are often asked of
me: ‘Did you consider the South African issue or the P akis t an
issue at the Colombo Conference and elsewhere?’ My
answer invariably is that we did not, because we do not
deliberately want to make the Commonwealth Conference
a kind of tribunal or a kind of superior body to decide our
issues. We are all independent countries dealing directly
with one another. The House knows that our membership
of the Commonwealth has made no difference whatever to
our dealing with the South African issue. If we go out of the
Commonwealth, it will not make much difference to our
policy, except, perhaps, that it might, in some ways, become
slightly easier for ns to deal with each country in the
Commonwealth on a reciprocal basis.

Apart from the general reason, namely, that there is
absolutely no object in our breaking an association which
might help and certainly cannot hinder and which helps in
the larger context of world affairs, there is one major reason
for our remaining in the Commonwealth and that is that a
very large number of Indians live abroad in what are called
British colonies or dependencies. I am not talking about the
self-governing or independent countries of the Common-
wealth but about other places. By our remaining in the
Commonwealth, these Indians are in a better position than
they would be otherwise. In the latter case, they would have
to make a sudden choice and break with India or with the
country where they reside. Had we left the Commonwealth
it would have put millions of our people in a very difficult
position, quite unnecessarily.

Coming to our relations with Pakistan, many hon.
Members have expressed the opinion that we have been
too gentle, that we have been indulging in appeasement or
that we have not been firm enough and so on. Well, it is not
easy to consider a vague indictment of this kind. One can

WE CANNOT BE ENEMIES FOR EVER

1S1

discuss specific matters and give an answer. It is also not
easy, because in the very delicate state of relations between
India and Pakistan during the last two and a half years,
everything that has happened does not see the light of day.
We don’t shout from the house-tops about what we do and,
therefore, all the facts are sometimes not before the public.
I do n6t, however, wish to take shelter behind that plea.
Most of the facts are before the public and before this House.
I should like the House and hon. Members — if not now, at a
later stage — to tell me what they think should or should not
be done about any specific matter. The vague idea of 'being
firm’ does not help.

The partition of India was, from every point of view, a
very unnatural thing. Well, we accepted it, we continue to
accept it and we will act accordingly. But as the Pnsident
said in his Address, it inflicted such wounds on the vast masses
of people in India and Pakistan as would take some time
to heal.

Some hon. Members have often pointed out that Pakistan
employs wrong methods and does not follow a straight
policy. I agree. But would hon. Members suggest to this
Government that it should also not follow a straight policy
in regard to Pakistan? I want that question to be considered
and answered, because I am quite convinced in my mind that
whatever policy Pakistan may follow, we should not follow a
crooked policy. I say that, not merely on grounds of high
principles but from the point of view of sheer opportunism.
If I have gained any experience in the last thirty or forty
years of my public life or if I have learnt any lesson from the
Great Master who taught us many things, it is this, that a
crooked policy does not pay in the end. It may pay
temporarily.

I do not mean — how could I — that any Member is
suggesting such a policy but there are people and organiza-
tions outside the House who do suggest it and that is why 1
referred to it. Some of the things suggested by bodies like the
Hindu Mahasabha seem to me the stupidest of things. But
there is a market for stupidity and cupidity in this country.
I, therefore, want to make it perfectly clear that these

132

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

suggestions, which according to me are crooked suggestions
and come out of crooked minds, will not be accepted by us,
whatever the consequences. It is not so much to this House
that I am addressing myself as to the people outside who
irresponsibly say things which affect our foreign policy and
which give cause to the people on the other side of the
frontier to create more trouble.

We are a great country and this House has great authority
over matters of State, both domestic and foreign. What this
House says or what an hon. Member in this House may say
is carried to far countries and this is how other people judge
our country. Therefore, we must speak with a great deal of
responsibility. Our lightest utterance may have a special
meaning for other countries. I try, in spite of the failing on
my part to talk rashly at times, to restrain myself. I have
tried to speak with as much moderation as I can on matters
concerning Pakistan and other countries. I am convinced
that we must be strong and firm in our policies and prepara-
tion, be they military or other; we must not give in on any
point we consider wrong, whatever happens: but our attitude
should, at the same time, be restrained, moderate and
friendly. Whether it is possible to combine the two or not, it
is difficult to say. Anyhow, that is my training and that was
the training we received even when we were fighting a
powerful imperialism and risking everything in that fight :
not to bow down to evil but to be firm with it, not to com-
promise with it or stoop to its own level but to prepare to
meet it on every front and, at the same time, be gentle in out
conduct and moderate in our language. Perhaps, some hon.
Members may sometimes mistake our soft language or our
moderate approach for lack of firmness. Why not examine
our actions — whether they are in the plains or in the moun-
tains of Kashmir — and study them?

May I beg of you to consider here that we are facing a
new situation, at any rate, a new development, to which an
hon. Member drew attention yesterday? The exodus from
East to West Bengal is increasing. I agree that is a bad thing
and everything should be done to check it and to help those
who come over. But behind it lies something much bigger. If

WE CANNOT BE ENEMIES FOR EVER

1SS

this kind of thing goes on, obviously it may lead to disastrous
consequences. Should we, in a moment of anger, say or do
things which precipitate further crises and further disasters?
I submit to this honourable House that a responsible govern-
ment should not do that. It should, of course, take every
effective step. But shouting aggressively is not such a ‘step.’
Unfortunately, the old traditions of diplomacy have been
forgotten in the modern world. Diplomacy in the olden days
may have been good or bad but people at least did not curse
one another in public. The new tradition today is to carry
on publicly a verbal warfare in the strongest language.
Perhaps, that is better than actual fighting but it leai's to
fighting or rather may lead to fighting.

I, therefore, submit that, in our relations with Pakistan,
we have first of all to follow a policy of firmness and adequate
preparation but always to maintain a friendly approach.
Again, there can be no doubt that India and Pakistan,
situated as they are geographically and otherwise and with
their historical background, cannot carry on for ever as
enemies. If they do, catastrophe after catastrophe will follow;
either they will wipe each other out or one will wipe the
other out and suffer the consequences, which is unthinkable.
We are passing through trouble and crisis, largely due, in
my opinion, to a certain fund of hatred and violence
accumulated during the days before Partition. We have
inherited this legacy and we must face it. Let us forget the
Governments — our Government and the Government of
Pakistan — and think of the millions of people who live next
door to one another. At some time or other, those millions
will have to come together, will have to co-operate, will
have to be friends. There is no doubt about it. Let us think
of that future which may not be very distant and let us not
do things today which may lead to generations of rivalry
and conflict.

We have, as the House knows, offered to make a joint
declaration with the Government of Pakistan for the
avoidance of war. Some hon. Members may think that it is a
gesture of weakness. Well, I am sorry if they think so, because
it is, in fact, a gesture of strength. We know exactly to what

10—11 DPD/63

184

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1958

limit we are going to permit things to go. We have made
that offer, because we are convinced that, if it was agreed to,
it would lay the foundations for a gradual, if not sudden,
improvement and for the settlement of various questions.
I do not want hon. Members to think lightly of a question
which they want solved by war. I can understand war in the
context of defence. I don’t wish to think of war in the context
of aggression and I want to make this point perfectly clear on
behalf of myself and my Government.

We have, indeed, fallen far below what might be called
the Gandhian ideology but it still influences us to some
extent. And, anyway, it is not a question of ideologies at all;
it is a question of looking at the world today with clear eyes.
As the House remembers, Mahatma Gandhi once spoke
warningly of the countries of the world looking at one
another with bloodshot eyes. There is something fateful about
that sentence. He said, “Keep your eyes clear.” So, I try as
far as I can, to keep my eyes clear when I look at the scene,
whether it is India or the world scene or the relations between
India and Pakistan; for bloodshot eyes bode nothing good,
no clear thinking and no clear action. An hon. Member
implied that people grow weak because they don’t have
bloodshot eyes or because they don’t urge one another on to
war all the time. That is not only a wrong policy but a policy
of despair.

If we can maintain a certain state of mental prepared-
ness only by strong drinks and intoxicating words, we must
obviously succumb when we do not have them. Therefore, it
is well to be prepared for all contingencies, whether military
or any other. It is well to be firm and not bow down to evil.
But it is also well always to be conciliatory and always to
stretch out your hand to those who will grasp it; because,
though their Government may not do so, the people will
always grasp an outstretched hand, not only the people of a
particular country but the people of all the countries of
the world.

A PLEA FOR BALANCE

F or some time past I have been greatly concerned with
developments in East Bengal and their repercussions in
West Bengal. I have followed these events with anxiety,
which my colleagues have shared with me. These develop-
ments in East Bengal have brought unhappiness and misery
to large numbers of people, many of whom have been forced
by circumstances to migrate to West Bengal. Apart from the
human misery involved, the situation is full of danger. The
Government of West Bengal and the Government of India,
fully conscious of this danger, have given the situation ea> nest
thought and taken such action as they consider necissary.
It is obvious that we cannot control the happenings in East
Bengal except by consultation with the Central Government
of Pakistan and the Government of East Bengal. We are, of
course, wholly responsible for what happens on our side of
the border. We have, therefore, taken appropriate steps and
been in constant consultation with the Pakistan Government
on these issues.

Events caused certain repercussions in Murshidabad
District which were speedily and effectively handled by the
West Bengal Government. Meanwhile, other developments
have taken place in certain parts of Calcutta, which have
added to the gravity of the situation. I would like to make
an earnest appeal to the people of Calcutta to help in control-
ling the situation and bringing it back to normal in every
way they can. Whatever action we take towards this end,
disturbances in Calcutta or elsewhere cannot help us. Above
all, we must avoid attempts at retaliation because they are
not only morally wrong but also harmful in that they weaken
the effect of any action we might take. I can well understand
the strong feelings that have been roused by the gruesome
accounts brought from East Bengal by the refugees and
others. We share those feelings. But action should not flow
from emotion alone. In order to be effective and firm, it has
to be calm, well thought out and based on right principles.

Statement to the Press, New Delhi, February 10, 1950

196 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1959

Otherwise, that action is not only ineffective but also injurious
to the very cause for which it is taken. In trying to solve one
problem, we should not give rise to other and more difficult
problems. On no account must we fall a prey to communal
passion and retaliation. The problem of Calcutta and West
Bengal is not only a provincial problem but an All-India one
and the burden of solving it must rest with the whole of
India. In this matter, differences in political approach do not
or should not count. All political progress depends upon
certain fundamentals, such as an ordered and tolerant society.
An ordered society faces those who seek to injure it with
firmness and effectiveness. If that basis is lost, then all the
anti-social elements will have free play.

I would, therefore, appeal to the citizens of Calcutta and
the people of West Bengal, including the refugees who have
come over from East Bengal, speedily to put an end to all
manifestations of disorder and to help in bringing normality
to the life of that great city. Only then can we face these new
problems, as we have faced the old, with all our combined
strength, keeping in view the objectives and principles for
which we have stood and by which alone we can make our
country great.

THE BENGAL ISSUE

F or some time now, especially during the last two weeks,
the country has been in the shadow of tragedy. The atmos-
phere of suspense has been further heightened because
accurate news was lacking and all kinds of rumours were
afloat; and, often greatly exaggerated statements were made.
The Government, responsible for dealing with the situation
developing in Bengal, has had to bear a heavy burden. For
the moment, all other issues, however important, took a
second place. The Government explored every possible
avenue in dealing with this situation. I must apologize to the
House for not giving much information on the subject earlier;

Statement in Parliament, New Delhi, February 23, 1950

THE BENGAL ISSUE

1S7

but the very gravity of the situation and the absence of
accurate news led me to postpone making a statement. I was
anxious not to say anything that might turn out to be inac-
curate or help in aggravating a situation which was bad
enough already.

The press in India, as elsewhere, has its faults. Some
periodicals are particularly irresponsible. I should like to say,
however, that during the last two weeks, the Indian press
has exercised commendable restraint and I am grateful for
it. Unfortunately, 1 cannot say as much for the Pakistan
press. I was amazed to read accounts and comments in the
Pakistan press which were not only grossly exaggerated but
often fantastic in their untruth and violent in then appeals
to passion and bigotry. Ever since the trouble started, it has
been our earnest desire to find out the facts because it is not
possible to understand the situation, much less to deal with
it, without knowing what has actually happened or is
happening. Even today, we are making every effort to induce
the Government of Pakistan to co-operate with us in finding
out the truth about the trouble, both in West and East
Bengal. We do not want an elaborate enquiry. All we want
is accurate information about the existing situation so that
both the Governments might adopt adequate measures and
deal with it. It must be realized that, left to itself, the evil
we are facing is likely to continue and its possible consequences
are too appalling to contemplate.

We deplore greatly what happened in Calcutta when it
was the scene of trouble. I think it can be said with truth that
this trouble was dealt with promptly and effectively. We
appreciate the firmness and impartiality with which the
Chief Minister of West Bengal dealt with the situation in
Calcutta. Calcutta is a big city and any one who wishes may
go there and see things for himself; but East Bengal is very
different in this respect and news travels slowly. A kind of
iron curtain fell on East Bengal during these days and accurate
information did not come through except in driblets.

The problem before us is much too serious for any one of
us to seek to make political capital out of it, for it affects the
future of tens of millions of people both in India and Pakistan.

138 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

I have endeavoured, therefore, to exercise as much restraint
as I could and to view the situation objectively. I have little
doubt that what has happened in East Bengal is far more
serious than what happened in Calcutta and one or two
other places in West Bengal. The two can hardly be com-
pared with any fairness. In any case, it is important that we
know the facts.

I shall, therefore, give the facts that have come to our
knowledge. For months past, persistent anti-India and anti-
Hindu propaganda has been carried on in East Bengal. The
press, the platform and sometimes the radio have been used
to incite the masses against the Hindus in East Bengal. The
latter have been called ‘kafirs,’ ‘fifth-columnists,’ ‘a danger to
our State’ and so on. Similarly, virulent propaganda, mostly
in regard to Kashmir, was carried on in West Pakistan, too.
Hatred and violence and war were preached in the name of
religion.

On December 20, 1949, an incident occurred in the
village of Kalshira in the Bagerhat sub division of Khulna
District in East Bengal. A police party went to arrest an
alleged communist. Failing to find him, they started to assault
the inmates of his house, including the women. Attracted by
the cries of the women, the neighbours ran to the scene and a
free fight between the police party and the villagers followed.
A policeman was killed on the spot and another died of
injuries subsequently.

Two days later, the police, assisted by the Ansars and
some rowdy elements, attacked not only that village but
twenty-two others inhabited mostly by members of the
Namasudra community. There was arson and looting on a
large scale; men were murdered and women ravished. There
were also forcible conversions and places of worship were
desecrated. The residents of the unfortunate village could
not escape because of the rigid cordon maintained by the
armed police and others. Even the news of the attack could
not come through. About three weeks after this occurrence,
some of the afflicted people in the villages mana ged to evade
the cordon and cross into West Bengal. Immediately, the West
Bengal Government drew the attention of the Government

THE BENGAL ISSUE

IS#

of East Bengal to this grave situation and asked for
information. This enquiry brought no reply and the personal
letter written by the Chief Minister of West Bengal to the
Premier of East Bengal remained unanswered. In spite of
obstructions, the migration from the Khulna area to West
Bengal continued and up to February 14, men, women and
children numbering 24,239 had left the affected areas.

Incidents somewhat similar to these took place at Nachole
in Rajshahi District in East Bengal, an area largely inhabited
by the Santhals. Following a clash between the police and the
Santhals, many villages were ravaged. By February 3, 700
Santhal families had crossed over to West Bengal.

The presence of all those refugees and their stc.ies of
ill-treatment shocked and excited the public in West Bengal.
As a result, some isolated incidents took p ’ace in
Murshidabad and in two or three villages nearby. The
situation, however, was rapidly brought under control. There
were no deaths and only a few people were injured. There
was also a small exodus from West Bengal, although the
exact figures are not known at present.

The refugees from Khulna and their accounts of what
they suffered created considerable excitement in Calcutta
and, as a result, a series of incidents took place on February 4.
There were stray assaults on the Muslims and a number of
their bustees were burnt. The police took immediate action
and made arrests on every occasion. The situation improved
and no incidents were reported on February 6 and 7. On
February 8, two Hindus were stabbed in front of a mosque
in Ultadanga in North Calcutta. This led to a recrudescence
of the trouble and arson and looting took place in certain
Muslim localities. There were also cases where Muslims
were stabbed. The police were given orders to shoot at sight
any person looting or stabbing or committing arson, while
a curfew was imposed in the affected areas. Military patrols
were on constant duty. From February 10 onwards, the dis-
turbances were greatly reduced in volume and were ultimately
fully controlled.

Owing to these disturbances, there was considerable
panic in some of the Muslim areas of Calcutta and a number

140

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

of Muslims left their houses for other parts of Calcutta,
notably the Park Circus area. According to a house to house
census, 26,112 persons moved to other parts of Calcutta,
although subsequently a large number of them returned to
their houses.

The actual casualties in the Calcutta and Murshidabad
areas were as follows:

Calcutta area (up to February 1 7)

Hindus

Muslims

Others

Injured

• •

83*

123

m #

Deaths

. , . .

11

20

# #

Arrested

..

979

91

6

*16 were

injured by police-firing.

Rest of Bengaly including Howrah (up to February 19)

Hindus

Muslims

Injured

, .

27*

23

Deaths

. .

5t

14

Arrested

, ,

360

75

*12 were injured by police-firing.
tOne was killed by police-firing.

On February 9, a conference between the Chief
Secretaries of East and West Bengal took place at Dacca.
On February 10, while this conference was still going on,
there was a demonstration inside the Secretariat at Dacca.
The employees of the East Bengal Secretariat marched to
Victoria Park in procession. After the meeting held there,
rioting, looting, murder and arson broke loose all over the
city of Dacca and continued till the next day. On February
12, a crowd of Hindu passengers was attacked at the
Karimtolla airport near Dacca by an armed mob and a large
number of intending passengers, including women and
children, were killed or seriously wounded. This tragedy
took place within a stone’s throw of the Karimtolla military
headquarters and in the presence of Pakistan armed guards.

THE BENGAL ISSUE

141

It is not possible for us to know exactly how long these
disturbances continued in Dacca or to give accurate figures
about deaths or other mishaps. Estimates of deaths in Dacca
city alone vary between a thousand and six hundred.

It is still more difficult to obtain facts about the mofussil
areas in East Bengal. But it is clear that there have been
disturbances in several widely spread towns like Narayanganj,
Chittagong, Feni, Rajshahi, Barisal and Mymensingh. No
correct information has been supplied by the East Bengal
Government about these incidents, although it was agreed
at the Chief Secretaries’ Conference that there should be
mutual exchange of authenticated information. Pass* tigers
who have flown from Calcutta to Dacca and back have
reported that they saw burnt out houses in the village* along
the route. For some days, refugees from East Bengal were
not allowed to come to West Bengal. Passengers in trains
were taken down at intermediate stations and the arrival of
empty trains in West Bengal caused a fresh spate of rumours
and excitement. Later, these restrictions were removed to
some extent but even then injured persons were not allowed
to cross over.

The figures for evacuation, both by train and air, from
East Bengal to West Bengal and vice versa arc as follows:

From Dacca to Calcutta by air between
February 12 and 21 . . About 3,500 persons

By train from East Bengal to Calcutta
between February 13 and 20 .. .. „ 16,000 „

Total . . „ 19,500

From Calcutta to Dacca by air between

February 12 and 21 .. „ 2,100 „

From Calcutta to East Bengal by train
between February 13 and 20.. .. „ 3,000 „

Total .. „ 5,100

A very large proportion of the Hindu population of

142

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-195S

Dacca went into improvised camps soon after the trouble
arose. These camps were, however, exceedingly unsatis-
factory. Many of these people have now returned to their
homes. According to the latest figures received, 7,200 are
still in these camps in Dacca city and 10,000 have been given
shelter in private houses in Hindu areas.

We have received a large number of telegrams, letters and
other accounts from individuals who have come from various
parts of East Bengal, giving particulars of ghastly occurrences.
I have refrained from mentioning these, for, usually, people
who have been through great ordeals cannot give a correct
account of their experiences and are apt to exaggerate. Such
figures as I have given above have been checked and are likely
to be near the truth. It seems to me clear, however, that
many parts of East Bengal have been the scene of bitter
tragedy.

The Government received the first reports of the Khulna
incidents on January 20. Further reports showed that the
situation was a serious one and that large numbers of refugees
were coming to West Bengal. Protests were repeatedly lodged
with the Government of Pakistan but with no results. Since
the trouble began in Dacca, the Government tried to be in
constant touch with the West Bengal Government and with
its Deputy High Commissioner in Dacca. Our Deputy High
Commissioner, however, was not in a position to give any
first-hand information for some time, because, on the advice
of the Pakistan authorities, he did not go out of his house.
Meanwhile, hundreds of refugees had taken shelter in his
office.

On February 17, I sent a telegram to the Pakistan
Prime Minister suggesting that every facility for visiting the
troubled areas and ascertaining the facts be given by both
Governments to the Deputy High Commissioner of the other
Government. Such facilities, I might mention, have already
been accorded to the Deputy High Commissioner of Pakistan
in Calcutta. The Pakistan High Commissioner was also in
Calcutta for some days. I further suggested to him that there
be a rapid survey of the situation in the two Bengals by two
fact-finding Commissions, each consisting of two representa-

THE BENGAL ISSUE

14S

tives nominated by East and West Bengal respectively, of
whom one would be a Minister. I expressed the hope that
these Commissions should start functioning within a week.
Also, I communicated to the Prime Minister of Pakistan some
reports which we had been receiving about events in East
Bengal.

On February 18, 1 received a reply from the Pakistan
Prime Minister. He agreed to give facilities to our Deputy
High Commissioner to visit areas alleged to be affected.
Regarding the proposal to send joint Commissions, he said
that he would consult the Government of East Bengal.
He suggested further that the two Governments -.Would
issue a declaration that they did not favour — and would
do everything possible to discourage — any movement of
refugees.

On February 20, I telegraphed to him again pressing for
the acceptance of my suggestion for joint fact-finding Com-
missions. In another telegram, I pointed out the gravity of the
situation and suggested that he and I should visit the affected
area together. This was to be in addition to the joint fact-
finding Commissions. I have just received a reply to these
telegrams. The Prime Minister of Pakistan says that in his
opinion no joint Commission is necessary or desirable. He
also thinks that if he and I were to tour East and West Bengal
jointly, it would produce no useful result. He further believes
that our High Commissioners will be able to supply full
information after enquiry. He adds that according to his
information the situation has become normal.

Our High Commissioner in Karachi has gone to Dacca. I
might mention that our Deputy High Commissioner at
Dacca wanted to proceed to Barisal to study the situation
there. The East Bengal Government has informed him that
it has to consult the local authorities before it can give a
definite reply and that this will take four days. It thus appears
that even the agreement to permit our High Commissioner
and Deputy High Commissioner to visit various parts of
East Bengal is not being honoured.

The Chief Minister of West Bengal made an offer of
sending relief parties to the camps in Dacca with medicines

144

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

and other supplies. The East Bengal Government has
expressed its inability to accept it.

It seems to me essential and imperative that the true
facts should be known. Charges and counter-charges are
made and excitement and passion go on mounting. In the
circumstances, it is not enough for each Government to issue
its own version of the facts. It was for this reason that I had
made certain suggestions to the Prime Minister of Pakistan
which he rejected. I still think that the fullest opportunities
for investigation must be provided on each side. We have
been and are prepared to give these opportunities. In addi-
tion to the proposal I have made, I am suggesting that
representatives of the International Red Cross, accompanied
by Ministers or officials of each Government, should visit the
affected areas in each province.

I hope to keep the House informed of developments in
Bengal. We are in constant touch with the West Bengal
Government and with our Deputy High Commissioner in
Dacca. Gradually, more facts are coming to our knowledge
and it becomes clear that a major tragedy has occurred. It
is, indeed, the duty of both the Governments to restore
normality and to give succour to those who have suffered. I
can say that the Government of West Bengal has endeavoured
to do this duty with a large measure of success.

While the present situation is serious enough and
demands constant attention and action, the future problems
that it raises are exceedingly grave. People talk vaguely of
exchange of population but from any point of view such
suggestions are totally unrealistic. Tens of millions of people
cannot be uprooted and transported to distant places. It is
true that in the Punjab migrations took place on a vast scale,
bringing infinite suffering in their train. They took place
because we were face to face with elemental forces and two
newly formed Governments had suddenly to face a crisis.
There is no such excuse now and both India and Pakistan
should have the strength and capacity to discharge their pri-
mary function of giving security and confidence to their
people, whoever they might be. It is not our desire to interfere
with the domestic affairs of Pakistan. But it would be idle to

THE BENGAL ISSUE

145

say that we do not feel sympathy and anxiety when large num-
bers of people in Pakistan have to undergo suffering and in-
dignity in an extreme form. We have all along discouraged any
migration and we wish to do so still. But if terror-stricken
people come to us for refuge, we cannot say ‘no’ to them or
refuse to give them the help they need. India and Pakistan
may have become two different countries, separate from each
other politically and in other respects; but large numbers of
people live in one country who have intimate associations and
relationship with people in the other. When in trouble, these
people look to each other for shelter and help.

It seems clear to us that a very large number of people, if
not all, belonging to the minority community of Pakistan
have lost all sense of security and live in fear and apprehen-
sion. It is the bounden duty of Pakistan, as it is ours, to inspire
confidence in the minorities so that the nationals of each
country can live peacefully and practise their normal
vocations. If a government is unable to inspii e that confidence
and its own citizens are compelled by circumstances to take
refuge in some other country then that government has failed
to discharge its duty.

Apart from the humanitarian, (here is another aspect of
this problem which affects us. Communal bitterness in one
country inevitably has repercussions in the other. If tragedies
are enacted in Pakistan, they powerfully affect our people
and we cannot remain indifferent to them. It is for the
Government of Pakistan to consider seriously what the conse-
quences are likely to be, if it is unable to give peace and
security to its own people.

The present situation provides an incentive to evil-doing.
There is thus not only false propaganda to incite people but
also opportunity for the evil-doer to indulge in loot and arson
and to get away with it, even profit by it. If a government
is serious about checking this evil it must punish the evil-doer
and compensate the sufferer.

I should like to make an appeal to our own people in this
grave moment of crisis. If they desire that tire Government
should take effective action whenever necessary, they must
realize that perfect order and security must prevail in India.

146

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

There are anti-social elements and communal groups who,
in spite of their declared opposition to communalism, really
function in tune with the intense communalism that prevails
in Pakistan. These elements have to be checked, because they
bring disrepute to our people and weaken the country.
Because of the very seriousness of the situation, we must
remain calm and determined and not indulge in loose
language or action, which is improper and harmful.

India has to face many serious problems. Among them is
the problem of Kashmir. The House knows how much
importance I attach to the latter, because behind it lie vital
questions of principle and moral behaviour among nations.
To me it appears that what has happened in Kashmir and
what is happening in East Bengal is inter-linked and cannot
be separated. We want peace in this country and with
Pakistan and I have made this point repeatedly. But peace
and goodwill cannot come by any superficial arrangement
when the deep-seated causes of trouble and conflict continue.
Today, the Bengal problem has first priority, because it
governs so many other problems. For my part, I would like
to devote myself chiefly to the particular issues of Bengal and
Kashmir which, as I have said, are linked together in my
mind. If the methods we have suggested are not agreed to,
it may be that we shall have to adopt other methods. I am
deeply troubled by recent events and my mind is constantly
trying to find out how best I can deal with these issues and
discharge my duty to my country and my people.

MEETING THE CRISIS

S ir, I am loath to take up more of your time but I feel I owe
it to the House and to myself to say a few words to elucidate
my previous statement. What I said seems to have provoked
an hon. Member of this House, Mr Lakshmi Kanta Maitra,

Reply to debate on the budget demand for the Ministry of External Affairs
in Parliament, New Delhi, March 17, 1950

MEETING THE CRISIS

147

to speak in terms of high emotion and excitement and
righteous indignation. I want to make it perfectly clear that
I have no complaint against Mr Lakshmi Kanta Maitra.
Being at times prone to emotion and righteous indignation
myself, I appreciate it in others. Nevertheless, I feel that his
indignation and emotion today were misplaced. Or it may be
that I did not explain my point of view clearly enough.

Mr Lakshmi Kanta Maitra spoke with a great deal of
feeling about the happenings in East Bengal. He spoke of the
numerous letters and messages he had received about the
sufferings and the indignities people had to endure. I may
not have access to all the sources from which Mr Lakshmi
Kanta Maitra derived his knowledge but I am also aware
of the horrible things that have happened there. I happen
to hold a responsible position and my decisions are not jaerely
expressions of opinion but may have to be iranslated into
action. Therefore, I must be careful that at this moment 1
am not led away by emotion, excitement 01 indignation.
Normally, I speak without having to keep a tight hold of
myself. In this instance, however, I dare not allow myself
to go because the responsibility and the consequences are too
grave. That does not mean that I am unaware of what has
happened; it is because of the very nature of the crisis, the
depth of it and its far-reaching consequences that I hesitate to
speak in unrestrained language.

The burden of what I said was this: in the course of the
last two and a half years there has followed what may be
called a ‘squeezing out’ process, especially in Sind and in
East Bengal. Some people say it is not deliberate or planned.
Some people say it is not deliberate at the top but is so at the
bottom or in the middle. Be that as it may, the main thing
seems to be that in the Pakistan Government’s conception
of the State, an inferior status is given to those who do not
belong to the majority community. This, along with other
things that have happened, gives the minorities a feeling of
insecurity. And this widespread sense of insecurity tends to
exaggerate anything that happens, thereby creating an
atmosphere of suppression. Thus, what might otherwise be
an isolated incident is transformed into a dangerous situation.

148

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

I also said, in sufficiently clear language, that apart from
the normal responsibilities of a State to other States or to
people in other States, a peculiar relationship exists between
the people in India and the people in Pakistan. I mentioned,
in this connection, our old colleagues in the Frontier
Province. I also mentioned very specially those who are in
East Bengal and said that we could not rid ourselves of the
feeling of the ultimate responsibility we have for them. They
may be in danger and we owe it to them to give them protec-
tion either in our territory or, if circumstances demand it,
in their own. It is patent that, in the existing state of affairs,
any protection they get in their territory can only come to
them through the Government controlling that territory.
That Government functions as it pleases and according to
the circumstances in which it is placed. We can, of course,
exert friendly pressure on the Pakistan Government to do
certain things in a certain way but we cannot act indepen-
dently of it. We cannot ignore it. The word given by a
government has two kinds of values. The first is positive and
has an effect on its own people and other people, whether you
trust it or not. Secondly, it serves as the initial move from
which subsequent steps follow. An hon. Member,
Mr Hanumanthaiya, talked of an exchange of population.
With all deference to him, I can say that, if he had given
more thought to the problem, he would not have spoken as
he did. This approach is completely devoid of intelligent
thinking. I was amazed that any one should talk such utter
nonsense. I am sorry to have to say this but it is a serious
matter and people must not indulge in loose talk.

A solution like the one that was suggested is not a solution
at all because in the best of circumstances it will take at least
half of a quarter of a generation to accomplish this. A solu-
tion that will keep you hanging for years is of little use. No
country can survive if it remains at boiling point year after
year. We have kept the door open and people can come and
go. When they come, it is up to us to make arrangements for
them; but, however fast they come, large numbers must still
remain behind. We cannot tolerate any danger coming to
those who remain behind, wherever they are. That has got

MEETING THE CRISIS

149

to be our main consideration. How, when and in what
manner, we can achieve this purpose is quite another matter
and one that is not easy to decide. But to suggest that we
bring them over, even though we may have to spend the next
ten years in the process, is folly. During these ten years, all
kinds of disasters and dangers may beset us. The moment we
■decide to get the minorities in Pakistan over, no matter how
long it may take us, we will have to overhaul and change our
past policy and principles completely. Not only that: from
that moment the danger will also increase, because the people
concerned will become aliens and have hardly any rights.
They will just be waiting year after year to go ovei to the
other side till transport is arranged; and all this while, they
will have no rights except those of bare protection. That does
not sound like a very happy solution of the problem. If it
were so easy to accomplish this, we would go ahead but we
have to watch carefully and go step by step. In so doing, we
have to keep our heads, for this is a serious matter affecting
not only our kith and kin today but also future generations
and, perhaps, the whole future of India. Therefore, it is a
terrible responsibility.

I spoke this morning about the hydrogen bomb and I said
that it was something that could destroy mankind. It amazes
me that some people should talk lightly of it. I have felt for
some time that, however disastrous the hydrogen bomb may
be, it is, nevertheless, preferable to the kind of thing we have
seen and heard of here in recent months. Let the world be
utterly destroyed but let us not continue to live as brutes and
beasts, ever sinking to lower levels. That is a challenge to the
generation, a challenge to this House and to this Govern-
ment. Are you going to fight the spread of beastliness and the
barbarism that is overcoming us? You cannot fight evil with
evil; you cannot fight barbarism with barbarism. You have
to take up a civilized position and resist brutishness with all
your might. Of course, we feel strongly about the people of
East Bengal but we must realize our responsibility to them
and in helping them try to find ways and means which are
civilized and which adhere to the ideals we have held.

II— It DPD/M

THE RIGHT APPROACH

I have been thinking of what would be the best way of
dealing with this Motion, because there are so many
aspects of it and the House, no doubt, is interested in all of
them.

Right from the first day that the Agreement came to be
signed, many of our friends have been speculating about its
success or failure. What exactly does this talk of success or
failure of the Agreement mean? This Agreement was meant
to deal with a particular situation and a very serious one that
had arisen, especially in East Bengal, West Bengal, Assam
and Tripura. It had affected the whole of India and also the
relationship of India with Pakistan. The Prime Minister of
Pakistan and I met to deal with that particular situation
which, of course, was the outcome of many other things that
had happened previously. No one thought — certainly I did
not think — that this Agreement was going to solve the entire
Indo-Pakistan problem. Apart from everything else, the
House knows that there are a number of other matters of
great importance that have not been settled. There is
Kashmir, for instance; there is the problem of evacuee
property which affects large numbers of people and the canal
water question which has also assumed some importance.
This Agreement obviously did not seek to solve all these
major problems.

This Agreement, then, was intended to deal with a
particular situation which had come to a head in East and
West Bengal and the surrounding areas. It was meant to
check the general drift towards a catastrophe. It was designed
to bring a certain measure of relief to vast numbers of people
both in East Bengal and West Bengal, the minorities in both
countries who had undergone great suffering and were living
in constant fear. They were, in fact, prevented even from
migrating by force of circumstances — not by any statute or
law. The immediate object was to put an end to the grave

Speech in Parliament on the Motion: “That the Bengal situation with
reference to the Agreement between the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan
signed on April 8 f 1950, be taken into consideration,** New Delhi, August 7, 1950

THE RIGHT APPROACH

151

tension and danger, to bring relief to millions of people and
to produce an atmosphere which would take us towards the
solution of many of the important problems that had arisen
in Bengal. We had hoped that, when the atmosphere
improved, we could gradually take measures to bring about
-some kind of solution. It must be pointed out, however, that
the solution depends not only on agreements in regard to
Bengal but on agreements covering the whole sphere of
Indo-Pakistan relations. To talk, therefore, of the success or
failure of this Agreement seems to me completely beside the
point.

Speaking, I hope, with due moderation, I would s«»v that
few things to my knowledge have succeeded so much as this
Agreement. Either those who talk of its failure are not in
possession of the facts or there is something radically wrong
with my thinking. One may say — and one could rightly say —
that the position in West and East Bengal is not satis-
factory. One may say that all kinds of difficulties exist there
and that the minorities are not happy or secure. That is the
problem and let us face it; but to say that the Agreement has
failed does not mean anything to me. You may, perhaps, say
that the Agreement has not solved the problem of Bengal
completely. I never thought that it would, although I did
think that it would help in bringing us nearer a solution to the
problem. In my opinion, it has helped more than it was
expected to. It is true that conditions in Bengal are not satis-
factory; but it is also true that they are infinitely more
satisfactory than they were.

The main thing to remember is that we have been
suffering in India, not only in Bengal but also in other parts
— and probably in Pakistan also — from a fever, from a sickness
which did not begin with the Partition but which the Partition
certainly aggravated. We thought, perhaps mistakenly, that
we could get rid of that fever by the surgical operation which
was Partition. So, here is this deep-seated illness, the disease
we are dealing with, which comes out in all shapes and forms
and will no doubt take a considerable time to heal. If we are
unable to solve the problem quickly and immediately, it is
not surprising. We are dealing with enormous social and

152 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1955

economic upheavals affecting the minds of millions of
people.

We talk of migrations and there have been migrations on
a tremendous scale since August 1947. But I should like the
House to remember that the migrations did not begin in
August 1947. They began earlier; in Bengal, a year before,
with Noakhali and other places and in Punjab — especially
from the Pindi and the Multan areas — in March 1947, that is,
many months before Partition. There was that disease, that
mounting fever at work which we tried to deal with in our
own way. That is how the partition took place and we need
not discuss at present whether it was right or wrong. Partition
dealt with the disease to some extent but brought in other
forms of eruption. We have been trying to face them and deal
with them even since.

I talked of this background because people seem to think
that the troubles that we are faced with are easy of treatment
and, perhaps, can even be treated by strong language,
whether it takes the form of a resolution or a speech. May I
also remind the House that during this period — if we look at
this question objectively — Pakistan has not been the only
source of the trouble we have had to face? There has been
plenty of trouble which originated in our own country. We
will not be taking a balanced view of the situation unless we
look at both sides of the picture. I say so with all deference,
because when I read the various amendments of which notice
has been given, it seems to me that not- a single one of them
has even tried to consider what has happened on this side.
They have only looked at the sins and failings of others, not
at our own. If we do that we would not only be acting
wrongly but we would also fail to understand the situation.
And if we do not understand the situation we must necessarily
fail to deal with it. I find from the notices of the amendments
that most of them want us to do something vis-a-vis the
Pakistan Government. Most of them, in fact, want us to make
Pakistan do something.

Now, that raises an interesting issue. Pakistan is a foreign
country. One deals with a foreign country, roughly speak-
ing, in two ways. One is the way of negotiations with such

THE RIGHT APPROACH

15S

pressure as can be exercised through them, whether the
pressure is political, economic or diplomatic. The other is
the way of war. There is no third way. These facts should be
borne in mind. When hon. Members advise the Government
to make Pakistan do this or that, what exactly do they mean?
Would any hon. Member advise me to do this and that, let
us say, in respect of the United States of America or the
United Kingdom or Russia? We are dealing with a foreign
country and we have to deal with it in accordance with
normal international usage. I am not quite sure how far it is
right and proper for a House like this to discuss a foreign
country in terms of condemnation. It may be right foi aught
I know but normally speaking I believe it is not done.

Let us return to the actual facts of the case in «o far as
Bengal is concerned. There is no doubt that conditions in
East Bengal and West Bengal are not normal. There is no
doubt that there is a feeling of frustration and insecurity in
the minds of the minorities. Now, I shall express my own
opinion for what it is worth, because one cannot judge. I
think that on the whole, the Muslim minority in West Bengal
— which also, I think, suffers from a feeling of frustration and
a certain insecurity — is relatively more secure than the Hindu
minority in East Bengal. Nevertheless, I want you to
remember that the Muslims in West Bengal are frustrated,
too. I say this with certainty and I also say, with a certain
measure of knowledge, that this applies to a large number
of Muslims in other parts of India also. Let us not, in any way,
preen ourselves and say that we have done our duty by the
minorities which others have failed to do. I am prepared to
apply one test to Pakistan and India and, as far as I am
concerned, it is an adequate and sufficient test. The test is
what the minority thinks of the majority and not what the
majority thinks. So long as the minority in Pakistan does not
feel secure and does not trust the majority, there is something
wrong there. I am prepared to apply this test to India, too.
So long as the minority in India does not feel secure and is
not prepared to repose its confidence in the majority, there is
something wrong here, loo. We must consider both sides of
the case objectively and fairly. If we do not do so, we put

154 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-195S

ourselves in the wrong and take a lop-sided view of the
situation.

There is so much talk of exodus. So many times it has
been said that it is a one-sided exodus. 1 am amazed at the state-
ment because nothing could be more untrue. It has not been
a one-sided exodus, no, not for one day, not for one hour. How
then can any one tell me that it is one-sided? True, there
may be more on one side than on the other. True, on balance,
the number on one side may be greater. But to go on repeat-
ing that it is a one-sided affair is absolutely wrong and
contrary to the facts. Look at the figures. I have supplied
you with the figures and I stand by them. It is no use telling
me that the figures are wrong. My figures are collected as
such figures are normally collected, that is, through the
railway and the Provincial Government operators. I have
no agents of my own; it is the West Bengal Government and
the Railway Department that jointly and separately work
to get these figures for us. It is difficult, of course, to collect
figures for people who may have crossed the borders on foot.
We can only guess. But for people who travel by air, by
steamer or by rail we can be fairly certain and we are fairly
certain about them. Indeed, if you take the proportion of the
Hindu minority in East Bengal and that of the Muslim
minority in West Bengal and then compare the figures of
exodus from the two Bengals, you will, I think, find that,
relative to their populations, the exodus was more or less
the same in each case. There is not much difference. It is
clear that, both in East and West Bengal, conditions became
unfavourable for the minorities and, in fact, exerted a strong
pressure upon them to leave their hearths and homes and
migrate. One can come to this conclusion without much
thought. This House knows that many Muslims migrated
from Uttar Pradesh, too. Again, one can say that the condi-
tions produced were such that they were compelled to migrate.
It is no good saying that they were asked by a few persons to
do so. The fact is that in these conditions they were afraid,
they felt insecure and left. Again, with the reversal of these
conditions, they felt more secure and now they are coming
back. If, therefore, you want to deal with the problem of

THE RIGHT APPROACH

155

migration, you cannot do so by simply saying: ‘Here, we are
spotlessly pure and our conduct is above board while there in
Pakistan, people are sinful and are driving out the minorities.’
If that is said, I say it is not true. An untruth will not succeed
and will not prosper.

Now, coming back to the figures of migration, you will
see that they are disturbing and they continue to create an
increasingly difficult situation. Nevertheless, there is a great
deal of improvement also. I cannot say if the rate of improve-
ment is fast enough to catch up with the disturbing features
of the situation. I am disturbed, I am distressed, I am not
content with the things that are happening — that is natural;
but if you examine the figures as well as certain other
factors to which I shall refer, the situation is definitely
improving.

Now, I have said and 1 say again that in my opinion the
Hindu minority in East Bengal feels insecure and, therefore,
cannot settle down. They want to come away. Even if they
remain, they do not know how long they will remain; I also
think that gradually the relationship between the people is
returning to normal. I am quite sure that the conditions are
much better in West Bengal now. They are not quite normal
yet and during the last two or three months there have been
two or three bad incidents in West Bengal. Nevertheless, the
Government and the people there have gradually got over
them. It is not, however, easy for me to judge how fast the
feeling of security will grow in East Bengal. On the whole,
conditions are still very insecure there. The insecurity comes
not from major incidents but rather from a breakdown of law
and order. There are dacoities — plenty of them — and often
enough, these dacoities take place in the houses of members
of the minority community and we have had far too many
complaints of molestation of women in connection with these
dacoities. It is very difficult to say definitely how many of
these complaints can be proved, because we receive them
naturally from the refugees and sometimes they reach us two
or three weeks after the incident. Nevertheless, we are trying
to lay down a procedure whereby every complaint will be
investigated fully, whether it is a complaint from us in regard

156 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-195S

to happenings in East Pakistan or from others in regard to
incidents in West Bengal.

There has, however, been a very definite improvement
in regard to two matters. One concerns the abduction of
women and the other, the so-called forcible conversions.
According to our reports, forcible conversions have practi-
cally stopped now. Our information in regard to the abduc-
tion of women is that, although such cases occurred some
months ago, no fresh ones have been reported. The number
reported previously was also relatively small and each case is
being investigated. Relatively speaking, the number is not
great, though, of course, that is no reason why we should not
have effective machinery to deal with such cases.

One other factor must be remembered. It is admitted that
the administrative apparatus of East Pakistan is poor. After
Partition, most of the efficient officers came away to West
Bengal or went elsewhere and left East Bengal with very
junior and second-rate people to carry on the administration.
Some, who were not in touch with the people of the Province
and could not understand them, were imported from out-
side. That is another difficulty in dealing with the lawlessness
there. I have no doubt at all that the Central Government in
Pakistan has, to the best of its ability, tried to give effect to
the Agreement of April 8 as we have done here. I think,
the Provincial Government of East Pakistan also tried to do
the same.

I have not, however, been quite clear about everything
they have done. Some of their acts have seemed to me to be
quite wrong. I am by no means certain, for instance, that
the petty officials behaved correctly. According to the terms
of the Agreement, we appointed two Central Ministers;
our Government appointed a Minister and the Pakistan
Government appointed one of theirs, and the two Ministers
were specially charged with the responsibility for the imple-
mentation of the Agreement. We have had the experience of
their work for about two months; they have toured about a
great deal and made various recommendations. In the course
of the last few days I have been seeing a great deal of them
because both of them were here along with the Chairmen of

THE RIGHT APPROACH

157

the Minorities Commissions and the Chief Secretaries of both
West and East Bengal. I should like to say that both these
gentlemen — our own Minister, Mr Biswas, and the Pakistan
Minister, Dr Malik — have, in my opinion, done extra-
ordinarily good work. I need not say much about our own
colleague, Mr Biswas, because he is our colleague; but I
should like to express my appreciation of the work done by
Dr Malik. So, we find honest people are trying to grapple
with and solve a difficult situation. They are up against
the evil designs of some people and the inertia of others.
They have to contend against economic collapse, against
the total breakdown, we might say, of social life, especially in
East Pakistan. It is, indeed, a highly complicated situation.
Nobody, not even the bravest of us, can solve the problem
all of a sudden. We are trying to do our best.

I should like to mention another thing which has
troubled me considerably, namely, the question of requisition-
ing houses in East Pakistan. We attached importance to this
matter right from the beginning and I told Mr Liaquat
Ali Khan that things were not very satisfactory. Suddenly in
July, that is, less than a month ago, we had a number of
complaints about requisitioning and we were naturally
surprised. We protested. To my amazement, we were told
that the houses were being requisitioned by agreement with
the Government of India. When we enquired further, we
learnt that I was thought to be the culprit; a letter from me
to the Pakistan Government was referred to as proof of this.
The letter I wrote dealt exclusively with agricultural land.
We were discussing the question of giving back agricultural
lands to the returning migrants. The Chief Minister of the
West Bengal Government had said that it was a little difficult
for him suddenly to push out the people, refugees and others,
who had been placed there to cultivate the land. Owing to
the delicate food situation, the lands could not be allowed to
remain fallow. He further said that he would get back the
lands after the harvest had been reaped. We had 'agreed,
however, to give every kind of accommodation to the return-
ing migrants in the intervening period. There was some
argument about this. I had written to the Pakistan Govern-

158

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949 1955

ment telling them what the Chief Minister of West Bengal
had said to me. I had also agreed that these people be allowed
to remain on the lands till they had gathered the harvest. If
the Pakistan Government wanted to do this, obviously, we
could not object. We were only talking about agricultural
land but they apparently extended my meaning and
applied it to urban properties, including houses. They
started requisitioning on a large scale. I think 811 houses
in East Bengal w r ere requisitioned during the month of
July alone.

I would like to draw your attention to another aspect of
the East Bengal situation. We talk about forty lakhs of people
having come away from East Bengal since the Partition.
Half of them came before this year, long before this Agree-
ment was concluded. Quite a number of them came almost
immediately after the Partition, because they wanted to
come away and that process, though slow, still continues.
Mostly, it is the middle class elements that are leaving East
Bengal on account of the pressure of circumstances. They
have, in a sense, been squeezed out of East Bengal; they
could not carry on their professions successfully, whether it
was practice at Llie bar or the medical or any other profession.
Many, however, stayed on. After all, you must remember
that nearly a crore of Hindus are still in East Pakistan. It is a
very large number. A very large number of middle class
people have come away, especially people like teachers,
after the February-March disturbances. As a result, schools
were closed; educational institutions ceased to function; in
short, the normal life of the minority community was com-
pletely upset. 1 do not know what the future holds. It may be
that some new equilibrium will be established. Some people
say that not a single Hindu can remain in East Bengal. I am
not a prophet; I cannot say. Something may happen
tomorrow to worsen the relations between India and
Pakistan. That would widen the gap and make it more
difficult for us. On the other hand, something may happen
to bridge the gap. There are so many uncertain quantities
that I cannot say what will happen. Normally speaking, I
see no reason why a very large number of Hindus should not

THE RIGHT APPROACH

159

remain in East Bengal and a very large number of Muslims
in West Bengal. Since the Agreement on April 8, there has
been a continuous flow back of the minorities, both Hindu
and Muslim, who had migrated previously. Since 1 gave you
the figures in the printed leaflet, there have naturally been
many changes in the situation. Up to the third of this month,
the figure for the Hindus who had gone back to Pakistan
from West Bengal was 600,000. It is, undoubtedly, a consider-
able number. A number of them, no doubt, go there to
fetch their goods and chattel. Our own estimate is that
the figure is 15 per cent for those who come back. Out of
the 600,000, we may say 100,000 have come back. Even
so half a million people have stayed on. Again, if you
examine the figures, you will find that the people who go
back take with them their women and children. Normally
speaking, people do not take women and children with
them, if they are just going to remove their personal
property.

The various amendments that have been proposed mostly
refer to Pakistan. Whether it is a question of exchange of
population in that region or elsewhere or some kind of
territorial redistribution or whether it is simply, as some
people say, an annulment of the Partition, 1 must confess
that when I read such proposals or resolutions passed by
responsible people, I begin to wonder whether they are sane.
Something must be wrong somewhere; and, naturally, as I
cannot examine my own mental apparatus, I suspect, that
of the others has gone wrong. Now, if people talk of an
annulment of the Partition in connection with the Bengal
problem or the refugee problem, it raises a number of issues.
One of them, of course, is that they are proposing something
which involves a war on a prodigious scale. And even if we
go through with such a war, what will happen after it is too
terrible to contemplate. And, in any case, a hostile approach
is of no help to the minorities. Now, with all deference, I
would like each hon. Member to consider how is either an
individual member of the minority community or the
minority community as a whole going to be helped in this
way. A way that involves conflict on a large scale means that

180 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

the first victims of that conflict will be the minorities them-
selves. It also involves general uprooting and upsetting
without doing anything to produce the condition for
rehabilitation we talk so much about. By the time the way
of war bears fruit, the minorities or a good part of them
may cease to exist. Every one of the proposals I have received
involves an upheaval, a conflict and sometimes, though not
always, war. Of course, you may say that everything that is
in the national interest is worthwhile. You may be willing
to pay a heavy price for it. I can understand that argument
even though I do not agree with it. You cannot say that
your proposals, if put into effect, will help the minorities
because what you suggest will, in fact, only cause them the
greatest possible distress and possibly much worse. It will
uproot them completely.

Now, take the proposal regarding the exchange of popula-
tion. I ventured to describe it some months ago as a
completely impracticable and fantastic proposal. I would
like to repeat that it is fantastic and impracticable and that
this Government will have nothing to do with it. Further-
more, it is completely opposed to our political, economic,
social and spiritual ideals. If you want to have an exchange
of population, then you must change the whole basis of not
only this Government but of all that we have stood for these
thirty odd years and during the movement for freedom in
this country. If people who have never had that basic back-
ground float about without any conviction or anchorage or
faith, I can understand it. But we have a certain anchorage
and if we lose that we shall lose ourselves, too. Therefore, let
us be quite clear that these proposals are fantastic and
impracticable not only because they involve war or some-
thing approaching war but also because in trying to work
them out you will destroy the minorities, uproot millions of
others and spend the rest of your life and that of the next
generation in trying to rehabilitate them. Something even
more im portant is involved in this. It is a question of faith
and it involves our whole spiritual background which is
even more important than the inconvenience and the distress
which an action may cause us. Therefore, I would beg the

THE RIGHT APPROACH

161

House to consider this question both from the idealistic and
the practical point of view.

People say that this Agreement has failed, that it has,
anyway, not accomplished anything. That is all very well but
the Agreement is not a law unto itself. Sometimes, some of
our own Secretaries to the Government carry on a tremendous
amount of correspondence with East Bengal or West Bengal
about the interpretation of this or that line in the Agree-
ment, as if it were a final statute which has to be interpreted.
I have no patience, I am sorry to say, with this kind of
business and I have told them so. Leave aside the Agree-
ment; let us consider the problem itself. What are you going
to interpret there? After all, the importance of the Agree-
ment is in its approach, not in this article or that paragraph.
Where necessary, we can change the paragraph and make a
fresh agreement. The whole point is in the approach of the
Agreement and the approach of the Agreement, as the
House knows, was such as thrilled the whole country; it
made a difference to the world, it made a difference to
millions and millions of people, Hindus and Muslims, in
India and in Pakistan. The friendly approach made them
feel that a great burden was going to be lifted from their
shoulders, that we were going to settle our differences by
friendly discussions and negotiations. If we perform out
duty, others are likely to perform theirs and we will almost
be in a position to enforce performance on their part. But if
we do not do our job and fulfil our duty, then surely we have
neither the right nor the strength to make others do their
duty.

It is no good having an approach which is neither here
nor there. I can understand — though I disapprove of it — the
attitude of defiance and war. I can also understand the
friendly approach but I do not understand a middle course
which does not have the advantages of either. It is a weak
man’s approach. You get neither the benefits of a friendly
approach nor those of the approach of defiance which takes no
account of the consequences. Therefore, we have nothing to
do with a middle approach. And, as far as I can see, there will
be no warlike approach. Therefore, we inevitably have to

162

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

fall back upon the other approach, namely, that of negotia-
tions. And having accepted this method of approach, let us
not talk about it as something which we do not believe in,
which we have no faith in and one which we think is bound
to fail. Surely, we did not accept it out of the generosity of
our hearts, knowing that we would give it up a few months
later! If we disagree with anything, let us fight it by political
or other means and put an end to it; but a kind of constant
inner sabotage is not going to do any good.

Therefore, I submit that, so far as this Agreement is
concerned, it has done a great deal of good. It has not solved
the problem; nor was it expected to do so. The problem in
all its aspects is still there for us to deal with but we must do
so in the spirit of the Agreement and not pay too much atten-
tion to its details. The only valid alternative is defiance and
conflict.

The position is a grave one. I do not wish to underesti-
mate the gravity of the situation in the least but I do submit
that every single proposal which I have seen — I mean the
amendments — will add to the gravity and the mischief of the
situation and will certainly not ease it. It is in the spirit of
friendly negotiations that I would have this House approach
this matter, remembering that it is indecorous to criticize a
foreign government from this House. If we were to do so,
they will criticize us in their Assemblies and, normally
speaking, it is not a practice which an honourable House
like this should encourage.

THE ATMOSPHERE OF SECURITY

F or two whole days we have discussed this grave problem
and many feeling speeches have been made. Various points
of view have been expressed, often in forceful and passionate
language. Whatever the other differences, we are all agreed

Reply to debate on the Bengal situation in Parliament, New Delhi, August 9,
1950.

THE ATMOSPHERE OF SECURITY

163

on one thing, namely, that the matter under consideration is
of grave import. I regret that the subject has not been dealt
with in a constructive way. On the contrary, it has been
treated from a political and destructive point of view. There
may be a difference of opinion as to what the facts are but
the difference can be at least partly settled by considering all
the facts we have, carefully and objectively.

It is important to decide what our approach to this
question will be, because that will govern our interpretation
of the facts and our subsequent actions. This question covers
many aspects, national and international, political and
economic, social and communal and, above all, the human
aspect. We have to deal with all of them; for the question
before us affects millions of our countrymen and, naturally,
anything that affects them has to be considered primarily in
its human aspects.

What are the principles which should govern our
approach? By what yardstick do we measure things?
What are our ideals and objectives in regard to our country?
Unless those objectives are clear, we are likely to flounder and
lose ourselves in a morass of misleading detail.

Now, as I was listening to the speeches during the last
two days, I felt that there was a great variety in the many
approaches that were outlined. It seems to me that we — this
House as well as this country — ought to be fairly clear as to
what our objectives and aims are so that the steps we take
might fit in with those ideals and objectives and into the
picture of the India that we seek to build. Otherwise, we
shall be continually in difficulty and I do submit that one of
our major difficulties in the past has been this varied and
often contradictory approach to such problems. You cannot
have an approach that is friendly and hostile at the same
time.

It is very likely that the Motion that I have tabled will,
to put it colloquially, be ‘talked out’; I should have liked —
whether it is now or at a later stage is immaterial — this
House to come to grips with the basic approach and principle
that should govern our outlook and come to some clear deci-
sion. It is not fair to this House, to this Government or to the

164

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1955

unfortunate individual who happens to be the Prime Minister
that we should waste our time and energy in meaningless
conflicts and squabbles because our basic premise varies
from individual to individual. Therefore, it would be desir-
able for this House and for the great organization that many
of us represent to lay down clearly how the present problem
should be approached.

Now, the Congress approach has remained uniform all
this time and it is the bounden duty of this Government to
follow that approach and none other. Broadly speaking, the
Congress approach stands for equality, for the underdog and
for the uplift of the people.

An hon. Member, Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee, expressed
himself in a language altogether different from ours and
approached the problem in an .entirely different way. Of
course, he is not bound down by the Congress approach; nor
have his past activities been conditioned by it. I may disagree
— as I did — with Dr Mookerjee’s approach to this problem;
but I admit his right to follow his own approach and to
express it fully. But I must confess that I was greatly surprised
and somewhat distressed at the fact that many of our
colleagues in this House, who are supposed to follow the
basic Congress approach on which we have built up our
policies and activities through the major part of our lives,
treated it casually and tried, in fact, to reject it, to by-pass it,
to ignore it, as if it did not exist at all or, perhaps, to think that
in the present circumstances, it had no more force left in it.
If there is no more force left in the approach of the Congress,
we must examine the ideology which governed all our
activities in the past and find out whether it still has any force.
Surely, we are not without any ideology, without any ideals
or objective, just living from day to day and reacting to
individual circumstances! It is an important matter to
consider, because we are face to face with grave issues in
India and in the world. We may ignore the world but as the
recent debate in this House showed, it is not a question of our
ignoring the world or the world ignoring us. If there is a war
in the world, it will inevitably affect our individual lives.
Therefore, we must be careful as to how we look at the

THE ATMOSPHERE OF SECURITY

165

problems which act and interact and affect one another.

Dr Mookerjee referred in an eloquent speech to a number
of instances — I think he gave three specific instances — and
then he threw at us a vast number of figures which he said
his followers had gathered. He gave certain indications, too,
of how he thought we might deal with the problem of Bengal.

It is difficult for me to deal with the figures that he gave,
because I cannot check them. We also gather our impres-
sions and our own figures through Government agencies and
many private agencies. The West Bengal Government,
naturally, helps us; so does our Deputy High Commissioner;
we also get help from the Central Government machinery
and the Railways. In addition, fortunately, there are many
brave men who are working for us under difficult circum-
stances in East Bengal and in West Bengal. So, we get all
these facts and figures and impressions and, from these, try
to form a composite picture.

That picture and those figures differ very greatly from
those that Dr Mookerjee placed before the House. I am
unable to accept them and I do not see how the House
can accept them either. In any event, one would require
some kind of proof and I do submit that Dr Mookerjee
himself, if he examined them, would not accept them, because
they have no prima facie evidence to support them. I am
referring, for die moment, not to the instances of brutality
but the individual cases that he referred to. He mentioned
three of them and they were bad in the sense that they were
painful cases. I have no doubt that these cases must be true;
what I object to, however, is his talking about 600 to 1,000
incidents which have been gathered from people who have
suffered and are excited, who often repeat things and whose
cases have sometimes been found, on investigation, not to
be based on any evidence whatsoever.

Srimati Renuka Ray and Srimati Sucheta Kripalani also
spoke feelingly about the matter. It is right that all of us.
especially our women Members, should feel the utter misery
of what our brothers and sisters have gone through. But there
are two points which I should like to place before the House.
Srimati Renuka Ray was rather angry, if I may use the word,

12 — 11 DPD/66

160

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

with the expression that Sri Shankarrao Deo had used, viz.,
kahani, which she perhaps misunderstood. Sri Shankarrao
Deo was referring to kahani not in the sense of a fable but in
the sense of an incident, the story of an incident.

Anyhow, there is no doubt that such incidents have
occurred and, as Dr Mookerjee gave three, I am sure many
Members of this House can — certainly I can — add to that
number. But the point is, are we going to consider this very
grave matter merely in the context of certain deplorable and
unhappy incidents and wallow in a sentimental morass and
lose grip of the situation? We are a responsible House
dealing with something that may affect the fate of the whole
nation and may have even wider consequences. So, we must
not be swept away, as at a public meeting, by a sentimental
approach and appeal. That is why we have met in all serious-
ness to consider this matter.

Dr Mookerjee was good enough to invite me to visit
Sealdah Station. I would gladly go there and I shall go there
when I have a chance and when I think my visit will be of
some use. I do not want to go there merely to make a gesture.
That is not fair to those unhappy refugees nor is it fair to me.
During the last three years we have had enough of tragedy
and we have had our fill of horror. We have, with our own
eyes, seen things which have left a permanent impression on
our minds. I do not think any one who has gone through
those experiences, whether in Bengal or the Punjab, whether
in West Pakistan or East Pakistan or in this city of Delhi itself,
will ever forget them. We seek a way of putting an end to this
suffering. If we cannot do so, then surely our fate is going to
be much worse. We shall suffer, not merely terrible misery
but, worse still, inhuman degradation because brutality
degrades everybody. It degrades the sufferer; it degrades also
the person who makes others suffer.

Therefore, when these terrible things happened, for the
first time in my public career, grave doubts assailed me and
the future of my country, which was rising like a star, grew
dim. It was not only because of what Pakistan had done.
After all, my future is going to be governed by what my
people do, not by what Pakistan does, just as their future will

THE ATMOSPHERE OF SECURITY

167

be governed by what their people do. No doubt, what they
do affects us. But, ultimately, my concern is with what my
people do. Doubts came to my mind and it seemed to me that
the noble edifice we were seeking to raise had been shaken to
its foundations and that the strength and stability of the
outline that we had planned for the structure had been
undermined.

May I take the House into confidence about a certain
matter which is, perhaps, known only to a few of my
colleagues? It is a personal matter and, therefore, I
apologize for the intrusion. When I heard that the
disturbances in East Bengal had terrible repercussions in
West Bengal and that all kinds of evil deeds were being
perpetrated, particularly in Calcutta and Howrah, I was
greatly upset. I was upset, as the House can well imagine,
not only as an individual caring for my people and sympathiz-
ing with them in their miseries but as the Prime Minister,
because I felt that in the ultimate analysis, the responsibility
was mine. It was mine, not directly, perhaps, but in an
indirect way, for the things that happened in East Pakistan;
nevertheless, the responsibility was very directly mine for the
things that had taken place in any part of India.

I knew that the military and police would do their job
well or indifferently as the case might be. But there was
something afoot which was deeper. It was not by soldiers and
policemen that we can solve such problems. How could I, I
wondered, affect the minds and hearts of the millions of
people who are my own countrymen and also, if possible,
those millions who are across the border? I did not see the
way clearly as a Government or as the Prime Minister. The
House will remember that I offered to the Prime Minister of
Pakistan to undertake a brief tour of East Bengal and West
Bengal with him. He, unfortunately, did not accept the offer.

The painful predicament of not being able to do anything
from here in Delhi worried me. Ultimately, I came to the
conclusion that, perhaps, I had exhausted my utility as Prime
Minister and there might be other ways in which I could
make myself more useful. Having arrived at that decision, I
announced it at a full meeting of the Cabinet and told them

168 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-195S

that I felt that my duty lay in East Bengal. If I was not
allowed to go there in my official capacity, perhaps, I could
go there unofficially, as a simple citizen of India and nobody
would prevent me from going there. Perhaps, my going
there — I could not attach too great a value to it — might be a
gesture which would affect the minds of some people, would
at least be a relief to me. I also told the Cabinet of my distress
at the way the ideals of the Congress for which we had stood
were fast fading away. I was left with nothing to fall back on.

It so happened that, very soon after, events took a new
turn. Mr Liaquat Ali Khan came here at my invitation and
for six or seven days we discussed matters and out of that
discussion emerged the Agreement of April 8. Now, that
Agreement put a new responsibility and a new burden on
me. I was responsible for that Agreement, partly at least.
That responsibility was later shared by the whole Govern-
ment and this House. But, initially, it was my responsibility
and I could not see my way to resigning from the Prime
Ministership just at a time the new responsibility had fallen
on me. So, I held on as I did. Whether it was right or not, I
do not know; whether it is right for me now to hold on to
this high office, I do not know. The moment I feel that I can
serve the country better in some other capacity, I shall adopt
a different course.

So, when we consider the problem of Bengal, let us for
the moment put aside one or two things-— not that they are
not important, they are highly important — in order to
consider it in a simpler fashion. First of all, let us put aside
the incidents that have taken place. We admit them and we
know that life is insecure in many places. We know all that.
We have to find a remedy for them. The second thing is — and
that is a very major question — the question of rehabilitation.
In a sense, that should overshadow most other considerations.
I wish that this House in the course of this debate had
considered that matter more constructively than it did.
Unfortunately, it was dealt with in a spirit of negation and
destructive criticism. It did not, therefore, help me very
much. It is a matter in which this House, I hope, will take a
great interest and we would welcome every kind of interest,

THE ATMOSPHERE OF SECURITY

every kind of help, because it is a question which the Govern-
ment with all its faith and all the resources at its command
cannot solve without a large measure of public co-operation
and sympathy.

It is too big a question. None of our big questions can be
solved by a government decree. Even if we had all the
money for it, we could not have solved it without strong
public support. And who can give that support more than
the hon. Members of this House? I should like some of the
hon. Members to go — some of them have already done so— to
Bengal, especially to East Bengal. They should go and see
things for themselves and help in creating the right
atmosphere.

I gave this House a certain pamphlet containing some
figures and other information and many hon. Members have
cited it. An hon. Member has argued that since it does not
contain information about rehabilitation in East Pakistan,
East Pakistan must have done nothing about rehabilitation.
I do not think this to be legitimate criticism, because the
pamphlet was not, by any means, meant to be an exhaustive
report on the subject. It was given under the Speaker's
directions and it contained, in a consolidated form, the
answers to some questions that had been asked by hon.
Members. In fact, I gave the answers myself. So, it is not right
to criticize it for its brevity. The figures we gave were obtained
from the West Bengal Government. As for East Bengal, I
know that something is being done to rehabilitate the
refugees but I cannot tell you immediately what it is.

I shall put aside, for the moment, the question of
rehabilitation, though I realize its importance. I shall also
put aside for the moment the narrative of the evil deeds that
have undoubtedly taken place. I shall consider instead how
we must face the problem. Dr Mookerjee put forward three
proposals. Those proposals, I take it, were in keeping with
the recent resolutions passed by the Refugee Conference.
Some Members of this House approved of one or more of
those proposals and some did not approve of them at all.
Anything that the Members of this House put forward is,
obviously, worthy of full consideration. I have given every

170

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

possible thought to the proposals put forward by Dr
Mookerjee. I have still not been able to get away from a
feeling of great surprise that any responsible person should
put forward any of the proposals, because, looked at from any
point of view, whether from the point of view of an objective
or an ideal or from the practical or the opportunist point of
view, I say each one of them fails and fails completely.
Analyse them. Let us not, in our feeling of anger at what has
happened, take leave of logic and reason and of the practical
aspect. I hope, of course, that we do not ignore the idealistic
aspect because I always attach great importance to it but let
us look at it primarily from a practical point of view.

I mentioned in my opening remarks day before yesterday
that the entire object of the Agreement of April 8 was to create
a certain atmosphere. We have spoken of the feeling of in-
security that prevails in East Bengal. There is that feeling of
insecurity, although I believe — I hope it is not wishful think-
ing — that it is gradually lessening. Anything may happen to
increase that feeling of insecurity or to decrease it. I am no
prophet and I do not know what will happen. Some people
believe that every single member of the minority community
will leave East Bengal. Well, they have a right to their
opinions. I will only submit that I find no reason for think-
ing so. Further, I would submit that if I had reasons for
thinking so at present, I would try my utmost even then to
prevent that from happening. I would not say anything or
do anything which would encourage the Hindu minority to
leave, because mass migration creates a terrible problem.

On the one hand, we point out the danger of the problem
and, on the other, do things which aggravate it. This great
contradiction has come in our way all the time. What, then
is our approach to be? Are we going to approach it with a
real desire to solve it — so far as such problems can be solved
— by creating a feeling of security in the minds of the
minorities everywhere? Or, shall we, while we complain
of the lack of security, make the situation still worse by our
speech and action? Hon. Members have said that people
in East Bengal have not come away because of newspaper
articles or of public speeches and that there are other causes.

THE ATMOSPHERE OP SECURITY

171

Of course, there are other causes. Surely, a newspaper speech
or an article cannot make a million people leave their hearths
and homes; but when the mind of the people is disturbed as
profoundly as it is today and the people are full of fear, then
every little thing counts. We are, indeed, dealing not only
with an economic or social upheaval but with a psychological
problem of the first magnitude.

I think it is admitted all round that the psychological and
the practical effect of the Agreement of April 8 was to reduce
the fear of the minorities everywhere. There is no doubt that
it did reduce their fear. Therefore, it can be said to have
worked in the right direction. It is no use thinking about the
results before we have created the right atmosphe»e. I must
repeat that by removing from the people’s minds ‘he fear of
an immediate disaster, the Agreement achieved a great thing

Many things that you and I may do, this debate, for
instance, will certainly have a reaction elsewhere; it may add
to the insecurity or lessen it. India listens, in fact, the world
listens to what the hon. Members say here in their speeches,
even though this is not a public platform. Many people do
not read the newspapers and the many things that are said
here may not reach them; yet we know how millions of
people are influenced by them, how a whisper spreads from
town to town, from bazar to bazar. I can well imagine it
said, 'Oh ! the Indian Parliament has decided this or that.’

If my good friend, Dr Mookerjee, says in his speeches that
things are insecure, that things are becoming more and more
insecure, then that itself is undoubtedly something which
adds to the insecurity, that undoubtedly comes in the way of
a gradual return to normality. Of course, Dr Mookerjee may
try his best and I may also do my best but other factors may
be stronger. We have no control over die Pakistan Govern-
ment and are not free to do what we like. My point is, we
should first control what we can control and only then can
we try to control others with some assurance. There has been
this contradiction all the time. Some people, some events,
some factors have been working for the creation of a gradual
feeling of normality and succeeding to some extent, while
other factors have been working in a contrary direction.

172

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

thereby contributing to the feeling of insecurity.

May I mention another matter? The very first proposal
which Dr Mookerjee put forward was a demand for the
unification of India and Pakistan. It is phrased in courteous
language. But what does it mean? It means, as every one
knows, war. It means not only war which is bad enough but
the creation of new problems before the old ones are solved.
Wars do not solve problems; they only give rise to new ones.

Yesterday, my friend, Sri Gopalaswami Ayyangar,
pointed out that in the Agreement arrived at between
India and Pakistan, we had stated that we would not permit
propaganda for unification or for war. On some occasions.
Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee himself was a party to these
conferences. I should like to read to the House a particular
clause in the Agreement of April 8. "The two Governments
further agree that they shall not permit propaganda in either
country directed against the territorial integrity of the other
or purporting to incite war between them and shall take
prompt and effective action against any individual or orga-
nization guilty of such propaganda."

Mark these words, and I say that I fail in my duty if I do
not act up to them. I cannot, however, act up to them for
various reasons: primarily, because we have a noble Consti-
tution and laws which protect civil liberty in a variety of
ways, even protecting uncivil liberty and licence. Therefore,
I cannot give effect to my pledged word and it hurts me not
to be able to do so.

Look at it in another way. What effect does this talk of
unification, behind which lie force, compulsion and war,
produce in regard to the security of the minorities? Can they
have a feeling of security when they constantly hear of war
coming? If the Pakistan Government tells us that we
threaten it by the talk of war, what is to be our reply? We
have none except to say that we and our Government dis-
sociate ourselves completely from this wrong and harmful
propaganda, that our country does not support propaganda
and .that we shall fight it to the utmost. That is all we can say.

Normally, it does not require an agreement between two
countries to say that they will not seek territorial changes of

THE ATMOSPHERE OF SECURITY

17S

this, type which, in fact, means a liquidation of those
countries. No country can enter into such agreements.
Pakistan has its separate entity and sovereign status as we
have. We have an Ambassador at Karachi; they have an
Ambassador here. We are represented in the United Nations
and so are they. It follows, then, not only in international law
blit iii accordance with every human and sensible approach
to international problems, that no country can go on propa-
gating the idea of putting an end to the Government or the
system of another country. And yet, some of our people are
irresponsible enough to indulge in such propaganda. Is it
the way to solve the problem of the exodus? As I stand here,
a gentleman, who is the President of the organization of
which Dr Mookerjee was a respected member, is going about
in East Punjab close to the border and in PEPSU advocating
in his own particularly aggressive and pugnacious manner
the annulment of the Partition and the unification of Pakistan
and India by force.

The first proposal was for the liquidation of Pakistan and
the third proposal was for territorial redistribution which
involves major changes and which can only be brought about
by war. Is it not an extraordinary proposition that
individuals, who are presumably responsible, should go
about telling people all this, thereby endangering
international relations, embarrassing the relations between
the two Governments and generally creating a feeling of
insecurity in the country? Now, to come back to the specific
problem which has been so much discussed, i.e., the feeling
of insecurity in the minority community of East Bengal, may
I, in all humility, ask Dr Mookerjee or any one who thinks in
the same way, ‘Do you add to the security of the minority
community by putting forward these proposals?’ What will
the reaction on Pakistan or on the minorities be? Realizing
that there are groups in India which want war against it,
which want to eliminate and liquidate it, the Pakistan
Government must, naturally, react in a hostile way, in a way
which cannot conduce to the security of the minority commu-
nities in the areas concerned. The proposals are, therefore,
the worst possible approach to the problem of security.

1?4 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-195*

I have not the shadow of a doubt in my mind that if all of
us, including Dr Mookerjee, had set ourselves — forget the
Pact for the moment— to create a feeling of security among
the minorities in East Bengal and in West Bengal, though we
would not, perhaps, have solved the problem completely,
we would certainly have gone much farther towards a solu-
tion than we have now. And what is more, we would have
solved it in the right way, in a way which adds to our strength
and to the strength of the minorities. In the long run, the
police or the military cannot protect people. They must have
the strength to protect themselves.

I wonder if hon. Members remember the effect the non-
co-operation and the civil disobedience movement had on
the people. The object was to create strength in the people
and it succeeded, because even the poorest peasant whose back
had been broken by centuries of labour stood up, straightened
his back and looked his landlord in the face.

Similarly, the object of the Agreement was to strengthen
the morale of the people. Now, I submit that everything that
weakens the morale of the minorities, wherever they are, is
a basic and fundamental disservice to humanity because it
reduces their value as citizens and as human beings. There-
fore, I say that the acceptance of the two proposals I have
mentioned is completely out of the question. They must be
resisted by everyone who gives thought to their implications.

I shall now come to the proposal which touches upon the
exchange of population. In the present context this can only
mean a forcible exchange of population. As far as voluntary
exchange is concerned, it is already taking place. The doors
are open and people come and people go. In fact, it is taking
place at such a pace that we can hardly cope with it. Indeed,
it has created what is called the refugee problem. Now, on
the one hand, we are unable to cope with this problem
because of the pace at which the voluntary exchange is taking
place; on the other, it is suggested that the pace should be
increased, that the process be made speedier. They say it
should be a planned exchange, as if the addition of the word
‘planned’ makes any difference. Plan, by all means. Nobody
prevents people, for instance, from rehabilitating the

THE ATMOSPHERE OF SECURITY

175

incoming refugees. But if we fail in this, what guarantee is
there that we would succeed if ten times the present number
of people should suddenly come? We are bound to fail.
Planning depends on the planners, on the human material
and on a hundred other factors. It is not confined to the
question of money, though of course money is necessary.

Apart from the principles these proposals violate, these
proposals are unacceptable even from the practical point of
view. In fact, far from taking us towards a solution, they take
us miles away from any solution. That is why I ventured to
say on the first day that I wondered if I was lacking in sanity
or whether some of the hon. Members were lacking in it.

An exchange of population must be a compulsory one. It
must inevitably mean sending away people who do not want
to go. It means, of course, as an hon. Member acknowledged,
scrapping our Constitution. Scrap it if you want to but know
what you are doing. We have bandied about the word
‘secular’, which I dislike. It means acknowledging our inabi-
lity to cope with any national problem in a civilized manner.
This brutal and barbarous approach would be unique in the
annals of history and, of course, completely at variance with
all that the Congress has stood for. You are certainly at
liberty to put an end to the Congress itself but do so with your
eyes open. Such proposals shame us in the eyes of the world.
They show that we are narrow, petty-minded, parochial
bigots who talk of democracy and secularism but who, in
fact, are totally incapable of even thinking in terms of the
world or of this great country. They put us in a position in
which we have to say to people who are our own fellow-
citizens, ‘We must push you out, because you belong to
a faith different from ours.’ This is a proposition which, if it
is followed, will mean the ruin of India and the annihilation
of all that we stand for and have stood for. I repeat that we
will resist such a proposition with all our strength, we will
fight it in houses, in fields and in market places. It will be
fought in the council chambers and the streets, for we shall
not let India be slaughtered at the altar of bigotry.

Some hon. Members have talked of compensation for
property and of planned exchange. Property is, no doubt, an

176 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

important thing in human life and we have been trying for
the last two and a half years to settle the evacuee property
question between West Pakistan and India somehow. We
have not gone very far, although I believe I am right in
saying that for the first time we see some glimmering of hope.
My hon. colleague, Mr Gopalaswami Ayyangar, who has
worked hard on this problem, also feels that some way out
will be found. I can say no more about it. People talk about
evacuee property in East Bengal and West Bengal and say
'Oh, about 5,000 crore of rupees would cover it.’ Let us at
least preserve a semblance of reason. At the present moment,
Pakistan owes us our national debt and is going to pay it bade
in fifty years. It means nothing if you write Rs. 1,000 crore
on a bit of paper. Where does the money come from? One
can imagine some relatively reasonable figure being obtained
or gradually realized but the talk of thousands of crores is
absurd. People seem to think that they can sign cheques off
for vast sums of money! After all, the wealth of a country is
in its capacity, for production and not in the jewels that the
Maharajas wear. We should be most concerned with whether
a proposal causes an increase or decrease in the productive
capacity of the nation. Even if we get a large number of
empty houses, hundreds and thousands of them, it will not
help us much. The only possible solution to the rehabilitation
problem lies in our pursuing the line of productivity.

Hon. Members will forgive me if I say that we cannot
approach this problem with the mentality of a shopkeeper
who just throws his money this way or that and sells his goods
to make a profit. We must think of it from the point of view
of production and think how we can make the displaced
persons, our refugee brothers and sisters, productive members
of the community. Let us, by all means, give them loans but
ultimately they must become productive members of the
community. That is the only thing which will make for real
rehabilitation and also be good for the country. We must
apply ourselves to the task of rehabilitation, not only because
it is our duty to do so but because it is not in the interests of
the nation to leave these people where they are, doing nothing
and suffering.

NO-WAR DECLARATION

177

I am sure that the Government of Pakistan will help us in
promoting the atmosphere of security, not for love of you or
me but because the facts and circumstances compel it to do so.
I am quite convinced of that. That, of course, does not mean
that it will cause us no trouble at all. It wants to solve the
problems because it realizes, very sensibly, that any other
course means ruin for Pakistan as much as it does for us.

NO-WAR DECLARATION

T he House will remember that 1 promised to l?v on the
Table of the House the correspondence that had passed
between me and the Prime Minister of Pakistan in regard to
various matters, notably the No-War Declaration. Subse-
quently, this correspondence grew and other matters also
came within its scope. I am, therefore, laying on the Table a
printed pamphlet containing the correspondence. I need not
say much about it, because I am sure hon. Members would
like to read it themselves; and then, if they wish to ask any
questions, I shall be glad to enlighten them. I should add that,
apart from the No-War Declaration, the correspondence
contains the proposals we made about the setting up of a
Tribunal to consider more especially two disputes, one in
regard to the canal waters and the other about the evacuee
property. Hon. Members have been asking me questions
about them. This correspondence will enable them to under-
stand what our proposals were and what the response of the
Pakistan Government has been to these proposals. I regret
to say that after nearly a year’s correspondence, we have
achieved no solid result.

Last night, I received another communication from
Mr Liaquat Ali Khan in answer to my last letter which is
published in this document. It has not been possible for me to
include it in this pamphlet because it came too late I am.

Speech in Parliament, New Delhi, November 28, 1950

178

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES I949-195S

however, placing on the Table a cyclostyled copy of that also.
I hope that this document will be available to hon. Members
in the course of the dav and that each one of them will have
a copy.

Naturally, I have not yet found time to reply to
Mr Liaquat Ali Khan’s letter. We shall do so as soon as
possible and a copy of our answer will also be furnished to
Members. Meanwhile, I should like to make brief comments
on some of the points arising out of the latest communication
of the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

Perhaps, it is not easy for hon. Members to follow the
comments on a letter which they have not read. As a matter
of fact, most of the points raised in Mr Liaquat Ali Khan’s
communication have been repeatedly discussed in the course
of the correspondence. Naturally, there is a great deal of
repetition in our letters to each other. Most of these points
have been dealt with in my previous correspondence and I
shall answer them fully when I send a written reply to
Mr Liaquat Ali Khan. For the present, I will just make a few
brief comments. What I say now is not said in any spirit of
controversy; the importance of good relations between India
and Pakistan is too great for any of us to imperil them by
words that excite passion. At the same time, we have to make
our own position clear.

I may add that I had repeatedly drawn Mr Liaquat Ali
Khan’s attention to the kind of propaganda carried on by the
press and statements made by individuals in Pakistan which
were a direct incitement to war. I told him that this kind of
thing, naturally, did not lead to good relations between the
two countries. In his last letter, Mr Liaquat Ali Khan has
referred to something about the Indian press. He has referred
to the tone of the press throughout India and particularly in
West Bengal towards the Delhi Agreement. I have previously
had occasion to express my regret over the attitude of certain
newspapers to the Agreement that Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan and
I signed last April. It is not fair, however, to accuse the entire
Indian press. On the whole, the leading newspapers of this
country have dealt with the Agreement helpfully and in a
spirit of responsibility and even the tone of some that were

NO-WAR DECLARATION

179

once hostile improved considerably after a while. Now and
then, there has been criticism of the Pakistan Government
but that has been due to many causes, not a few of which are
in the power of the Pakistan Government to remove.

As for the alleged activities of certain individuals, they are
of no consequence and one should not take serious notice of
them. May I add that this is a reference to one or two indivi-
duals who, I believe, proclaimed some time ago that they had
set up a parallel government or something similar? I have no
personal knowledge of the matter; but I have pointed out
that it is of no consequence. In any case, what counts is the
firm resolve of the Government of India to impleme nt the
Agreement in full.

Then, in his last letter, a reference has been made by
Mr Liaquat Ali Khan to Junagadh. In Junagadh, it was the
will of the people that prevailed, not any military effort by
India. Mr Liaquat Ali Khan’s reference to large-scale
movements of Indian forces along the borders of Pakistan
during the Bengal trouble is an indication that our action has
been misunderstood. We had no desire then to attack
Pakistan just as we have none to attack her now. Our mea-
sures were purely defensive and taken during a period of high
tension; we should, indeed, have failed in our duty if we had
not taken all precautions for the security of the country.

I am glad to note that in reply to my declaration made
some months ago at a Press Conference to the effect that
India would not resort to war in Kashmir unless attacked,
Mr Liaquat Ali Khan has stated that Pakistan has no inten-
tion of attacking India either. As for his other arguments
regarding Kashmir, I do not propose to answer them at
length since our position has been made clear repeatedly. I
would only say that while we sent our forces to Kashmir
after the Government of the State had lawfully acceded to
India, with the full approval of its most numerous and
representative popular party, Pakistan sent its troops into
what had become Indian territory, without any justification.
As for the settlement of the Kashmir dispute, we have resiled
from none of the assurances that we have given to the people
of Jammu and Kashmir or to the United Nations.

180

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

I shall not go into the canal waters dispute here and only
say that nothing we have said is inaccurate. There is some
argument about what has been said. The statement attri-
buted by the Prime Minister of Pakistan to our represen-
tatives was made by those who represented India on a
sub-committee. Their report on the subject of canal waters
was not accepted by the Punjab Partition Committee because
of fundamental differences of opinion over the question of
the distribution of the waters. I may also add that, in the
early days, there were numerous committees and sub-
committees dealing with Partition matters. There was the
Punjab Partition Committee, consisting of representatives
of the two Punjabs, which was quite distinct from the Central
Partition Committee. The Punjab Partition Committee had
appointed a sub-committee in the Punjab and in that sub-
committee certain statements were made to which Mr
Liaquat Ali Khan now draws our attention.

Mr Liaquat Ali Khan says he is convinced that a war
between India and Pakistan will be an unmitigated disaster
for both countries. He has given the assurance that he will
continue to work for peace. I fully share this conviction and
have affirmed it on many occasions. India’s will to peace is
certainly no less than that of Pakistan and I can give a
categorical assurance that we shall continue to work for peace
with our neighbouring country.

The discussions between Mr Liaquat Ali Khan and me
before the Delhi Agreement brought out fully the value of
personal contacts. I have full faith in them. Mr Liaquat Ali
Khan has kindly invited me to pay another visit to Karachi
as soon as my duties permit it. My duty here in Parliament
and other preoccupations, however, make it unlikely that I
will visit Karachi in the next few weeks. Nevertheless, I
welcome Mr Liaquat Ali Khan's invitation and shall avail
myself of it as soon as I am able to.

INDIA -IS OPPOSED TO WAR.

J^uring these two days, many hon. Members have been good
enough to express themselves in kind words about several
aspects of our policy, especially our foreign policy. Much has
been said to which I should like to reply; much has been said
that has rather embarrassed me, especially so when it was
meant to be kind but struck me as being just the opposite of it.

On this occasion, I propose to limit myself to foreign
policy, particularly in the context of our relations with
Pakistan and the question of Kashmir.

I am grateful for the support given to our foreign policy
by this House. I am also grateful for what lay behind the kind
words that have been said, because words as such do not
carry much meaning. My colleagues and I have had to carry
a very heavy burden and even though we may appear light-
hearted sometimes, the burden is heavy. We naturally want
as much support as possible, not merely kind words and
phrases but intelligent support, understanding support, real
support. I have, during the past few days, ventured to go out
into the market place and to the fields to see large numbers of
people in Delhi and the neighbourhood. I have tried to tell
them about the questions that trouble us and about the great
burdens we have to carry. I have asked them for their
support. Wherever I have gone, I have found their support.
It has heartened me because they are the people whom we
presume to represent, whose ultimate will must count and
whose morale counts more than any resolution.

I claim no virtue for myself or for our Government or
even for our country and I suspect those who do claim it. It
is easy to get into the habit of talking big about ourselves; but
we know that the noblest words sometimes gain currency in
the mouths of base men and lose their meaning. We talk
about patriotism and love of country and very often so-called
patriots indulge in unworthy actions. So, it does not very much
matter what fine language I might use or other hon. Members
might use in this or any other connection. The ultimate test is
in action. It is in the fire of experience and trial.

Reply to debate on the President’s Address in Parliament, New Delhi.
August 11, 1951
13—11 DFD/6S

182

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-195S

We have been through grim tests and are the better for it.
In spite of our weakness we had some principles to hold on
to, some light to which we were drawn. We went towards it in
our weak way and were strengthened thereby. We did not
mind if instead of a garden we had sometimes to go through
a wilderness. This is the way in which my generation in
India has been nurtured. I say this, not in a personal context
but because people in this country seem to have short
memories and are apt to forget their past. They forget that we
have not yet learnt to bow down to evil. We did not bow
down to it when it was represented by a mighty force against
us compared to which we were feeble and unarmed. How.
then, can we bow down today when we are stronger? Are
we really stronger in our minds, in our hearts and in the way
we pull together? That is what gave us strength in the days
of old. Does it give us strength today? I do not think our
defence forces without the basic strength of a united people
can go very far in times of trial. People have talked of being
totally unable to eat wheat; they have said that they must
have rice. It seemed to me that there is something basically
wrong when petty questions are brought up at a time when
big things are at stake.

We may have to live on wheat or something worse than
wheat, if we are serious about freedom. It is no good talking
of rice or complaining that we are not used to wheat. We will
have to get used to many things that we are not used to.
Many of us in this House who lived in jails were certainly
not used to them! We were not born to live in the wilderness
or in prisons. But we did not complain. If everybody wants
the things to which he is accustomed, the demand must be
met at the cost of someone else. One part of India may have
to suffer at the hands of another part.

To come to the main issue, we have followed a foreign
policy which this House has supported largely, if not always
unanimously. I have often pointed out that our policy is not
merely negative or neutral or passive; so far as I can see, it is
a very active one. We do not wish to play a large part in the
affairs of the world. We have troubles of our own. But, where
our voice is sought, it will be given in accordance with our

INDIA IS OPPOSED TO WAR

IBS

views and nobody else’s views, regardless of the pressure that
is brought to bear upon us. Even if we have to suffer for that,
I hope we shall be prepared to suffer rather than give up our
independence of judgment and action.

Although every intelligent person must realize that a war
must be avoided at all costs, no country can do away with the
apparatus of war. At least, no responsible government dare
take that step. If we value our freedom, we cannot afford to
depend only on the good in human nature because we live in
a harsh and cruel world. We have to depend on our own
strength and be prepared to defend our freedom.

My friend, Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee, appe/ed for
statesmanship in his speech and I entirely agree w : th him.
But it is very difficult to say what statesmanship really is.
I do wish to say, however, that to think largely in military
terms is not statesmanship. When I see that military
objectives have become the goal of statesmanship, frankly, I
am nervous and afraid. Our voice does not go very far in the
international assemblies but, anyhow, it gives us the satisfac-
tion that we have said what we feel is right.

This approach has governed our actions in foreign policy
and we have tried to apply it even to our relations with
Pakistan. Of course, very special considerations apply to our
relations with Pakistan because of our past history and
because of the conflicts we have had. Nevertheless, the fact
remains that a major conflict between India and Pakistan
would be a disaster of the first magnitude for both the
countries. I say that and I shall repeat it because some hon.
Members do not wholly appreciate that. If a problem is
difficult it will not be solved through war. All war does is to
kill a large number of human beings and destroy their pro-
perty. It is a solution only in the sense that it can exterminate
the entire population of a country. War, nevertheless, is
possible for various reasons, one among them being foolish-
ness. If a country is foolish enough to have a war you cannot
run away from it; you have to face it with all your strength
and put an end to it. Therefore, we envisage war, if at all,
as a purely defensive measure. That is why we wanted to
reduce our army.

184 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

Our approach is not, if I may say so, one of piety or
pacifism. It is an approach based on hard facts and on a cold-
blooded realization of facts. Since we want to avoid war, we
offered Pakistan a no-war declaration which Pakistan did not
wholly accept or agree to. And even a few days ago, this
offer was repeated but they declined to accept it unless
Kashmir was left out of it.

When we consider the question of Indo-Pakistan rela-
tions, let us look at it as a whole and not only at Kashmir,
Bengal or Assam. Think for a while of past history, too,
because what we see today has grown out of the past. Some
twenty or thirty years ago, most of us stood, as we do today,
for intercommunal unity. We wanted a peaceful solution of
our internal problems and a joint effort to win our freedom.
We hoped we could live together in that freedom. The
supporters of Pakistan had a different gospel. They were not
for unity but disunity, not for construction but for destruc-
tion, not for peace but for discord, if not war. I do not think
that the people of Pakistan are any better or any worse than
the people of India. I know that we have failed and failed
quite often; and the person who talks most of his own virtues
is often the least virtuous. Fortunately, a certain ideal was
before us in this country during the last twenty or thirty
years which naturally affected our thinking and action. And
in spite of everything, that ideal continues to be our guiding
star. That is the major difference between India’s policies
today and those of Pakistan. The latter are naturally derived
from their previous record of discord, the deliberate propa-
gation of hatred and disunity. I am quite convinced that a
country that follows such a policy will injure itself. I fear the
consequences of a narrow attitude such as Pakistan’s and,
therefore, do not want India to follow a similar policy, come
what may.

An hon. Member talked of statesmanship and I must say
I do not quite know how to define statesmanship. There are
probably many definitions. If I may suggest one, statesman-
ship is the ability to think not only of your immediate urge,
not only of the action before you but also of the consequences
of that action, to think not only of today but of what

INDIA IS OPPOSED TO WAR

185

tomorrow and the day after might bring. In other words,
perspective and vision are essential attributes of statesman-
ship. That test should be applied to some of the things that
have been said here since yesterday. Proposals have been
made in regard to East Bengal or Pakistan or Kashmir. It is
futile, just because you are angry with Pakistan, to say, ‘To
hell With Pakistan. Let us go ahead ourselves.’ That you have
lost your patience with something that is happening, is no
justification for you to do the same thing. You have to think
of the morrow’s consequences. I am, at the moment, not
talking about moral Standards. I am merely applying the
pragmatic test of action.

The actions you indulge in must have consequences and
these consequences flow from action as inevitably as any law
of physics or chemistry.

My friend, the hon. Dr Mookerjee, seems to think that we
have forgotten the minorities of East Bengal. Allow me to
assure him that there have been very few things which have
made us more anxious. It is true that, for a variety of reasons,
we have not talked about it too often. And, in any case,
talking would not do much good. Obviously, the problem of
East Bengal, that of Kashmir and many others are all parts
of a single big problem, namely, that of Indo-Pakistan
relations which have deep roots in the past.

All you can do is to improve a situation like that in East
Bengal but you can have no solution unless you solve the final
problem first.

A year and a half ago, on April 8, we had an agreement
with the Prime Minister of Pakistan in regard to the situation
in Bengal and Assam. A good deal of criticism followed then
and was repeated later. I am often asked by newspaper
correspondents and other people what happened to the Agree-
ment. Such questions surprise me, because I believe that the
Agreement is among the greatest successes that we have
achieved during the last few years. Of course, it did not solve
the problem of East Bengal; it was never expected to. It was
only meant to ease the immediate difficulty and improve the
situation, to bring relief to millions of people and to make
way for further improvement. The results it achieved were

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-195*

remarkable in the sense that a great deal of human misery
was relieved and millions were given help in a variety of
ways.

Hon. Members ask me — though not always in so many
words — why the Kashmir problem has not been solved. I can
name a few dozen major problems of the world which drag
on and on without any solution in spite of the United
Nations and in spite of the best efforts of the people concerned.

I doubt if there are more than a handful of people in this
wide world who want war. Nevertheless, the fact remains that
the whole world is becoming more and more military-
minded. Why is that so? Everybody knows that a world war
would be terrible, that it would destroy the proud structure
of European civilization and cause enormous and widespread
misery. Yet, people go on preparing for war as though they
were driven by some elemental and uncontrollable urge.

Two or three suggestions were repeated. One of the
suggestions made to Pakistan on this occasion was that she
should offer us territory in proportion to the number of
migrants who come over. Another concerned an exchange of
population and that, presumably, would also involve an
exchange of territory. Let us be perfectly clear that such
demands mean war. I hope nobody here is so foolish as to
believe that such proposals can be effected merely by sending
a registered communication. It means war and if it means
war, let us not think of exchange of territory or population
but of war. Let us not be confused. It is only too easy to
make suggestions and later try to escape the consequences of
what we say.

I have tried to put it to the House that by war we will not
get what we want; we shall only win for ourselves a genera-
tion of terrible misery in addition to destroying everything
that we have built up and being faced with the burden of
terrible poverty. This will happen, irrespective of whether or
not we win the war. Therefore, let us consider these problems
a little more realistically and not jump to the conclusion that
we can achieve our objective by some kind of strong action.

I would like to add something to what I have already said
on the subject of Bengal and Assam. It is impossible for me to

INDIA IS OPPOSED TO WAR

187

conceive that the process of squeezing out large numbers of
people can continue much longer. During the last year, an
opposite tendency has been in evidence but, of late, the tide
has turned again. There is no dobut in my mind that the
general conditions in East Bengal are such that some kind of
continuous pressure is exercised on the minority population.
Presumably, they put up with the pressure and leave when
it becomes too much. This is an abnormal situation which
keeps alive the tension in Indo-Pakistan relations. It is some-
thing that will not allow us to settle down but I cannot find
a magic remedy for it. It is one of those difficult problems
which can only be settled when there is a basic improvement
in the total situation. Of course, we can deal with it provi-
sionally in the best way possible but the solutions thus effected
cannot possibly be permanent. I have ruled out war as a
measure for the easing of Indo-Pakistan relations but I
cannot rule it out independently or unilaterally. Since the
other party brings it in and talks and shouts so much about it,
I have to be perfectly ready for it.

Now, I shall say a few words about Kashmir. May I say
that the House had the great advantage of hearing today the
authentic voice of Kashmir in this House? I am exceedingly
glad that we had the exposition of Kashmir’s position from
one who is, perhaps, more entitled than almost any other
person in Kashmir to give it, because the hon. Member
who spoke is the General Secretary of the Kashmir National
Conference.

In considering the question of Kashmir, we should also
not confine ourselves to the present. We should go back at
least four years when the trouble started; but to understand
it, we should really go back eighteen or nineteen years when
the movement against autocratic rule in Kashmir began. It
gradually built itself up and challenged the Maharaja’s rule.
In the course of these years of struggle there were, naturally,
many ups and downs; people were imprisoned and shot down;
the things we faced during our fight for independence
happened in Kashmir also. It is interesting to recall the part
the leaders of Pakistan were playing in the days when the
people of Kashmir were struggling for their freedom — not

188 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

only the people of Kashmir but the people in all the States
in India. The House will remember that the Muslim League
supported autocratic rule in every State; perhaps, they did
not interfere openly but they certainly helped it privately. So
also in Kashmir. I know that the Maharaja was a Hindu but
the odd thing is that the Muslim League was in some ways in
alliance with or being helped by the Hindu Maharaja’s
Government in Kashmir against the national movement. Not
that there was much love lost between them but, because this
great national movement for freedom had to be opposed,
every odd group that could be rallied for the purpose was
called upon to do so.

When all is said and done, there were no forces to
challenge the national movement in Kashmir; there were
small groups and scattered parties no doubt but nothing very
effective. In the course of those years and till just before the
invasion of Kashmir took place, efforts were made time and
again by the leaders of the Muslim League to woo Sheikh
Mohammad Abdullah in order to win him over to their side.
The efforts did not succeed because the two viewpoints
involved were diametrically opposed. You heard the hon.
Member from Kashmir today and the attitude he represents
is as different from communalism as anything could be. My
friend, Mr Alva, talked a great deal about a secular State. I
wish we were much more of a secular State than we are at
present. I wish also that we would approach the ideal we have
adopted in our Constitution. Too many people are attack-
ing that ideal; too many people are trying to undermine it.
If they do not actually attack it they act in a way which will
undermine it. In other words, there are far too many people
in this country who are communal and narrow. In Kashmir,
it was a straight fight between communalism and the ideal
that we hold and it is still the same fight. It is quite absurd to
talk of India and Pakistan fighting for possession of Kashmir
as if it was some booty to be seized by the stronger party. In
Kashmir, people have struggled for a basic ideal. The
Kashmiri people have also fought for that ideal more than our
Armies did. Do you remember that before our Armies went
there, there were three days when there was no proper

INDIA IS OPPOSED TO WAR

189

government or police in the Valley of Kashmir? I regret to
say that those who were in authority then, ran away, taking
with them their bag and baggage, while the enemy was
raiding and pillaging, so to speak, almost at the Valley’s
doorstep.

What happened in the Valley of Kashmir then? Surely,
if any sympathy for the invader had existed among the people,
the whole Valley would have been offered on a silver platter
to the invader. In the absence of a strong feeling of national
unity and national consciousness, the whole place would have
gone to pieces. Since the governmental apparatus had gone,
there would have been terrible panic and confusion. 1 nstead,
the people of the Valley kept the peace for three whole days;
the volunteers and the leaders of the National Conference,
without arms, with nothing but their patriotic appeals, kept
watch day and night and, to the last day. there was not a
single shop that closed in Srinagar even though the enemy
was only six miles away.

When people talk of plebiscite and accuse India of
imposing itself on Kashmir, they should keep what I have
said in mind. I have not the shadow of a doubt that, as
Maulana Masoudi said, a plebiscite in Kashmir can only result
in the victory of the present Government there.

You know the rest of the story about the invasion and
what followed it. It is remarkable that, after all that has
happened, some of our friends in foreign countries write and
speak and behave in the manner they do. I can under-
stand that their knowledge of events is limited; nevertheless,
the assurance with which they try to lay down the law,
sometimes the effrontery with which they advise us, amazes
me.

When I think of Pakistan’s case and the way they present
it repeatedly, I am reminded of the story of a young man who
murdered his father and mother. When he was tried for it, he
pleaded for mercy on the ground that he was an orphan. It is
really extraordinary how reality has been distorted beyond
recognition by Pakistan. I have often wondered whether we
have not made a mistake somewhere in regard to Kashmir.
We may have committed many small errors but I just cannot

190 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

accept that any major step we have taken can be called
wrong.

The House will remember that a year and a half ago
there was a cease-fire and just about that time the UN
Commission passed a resolution which we accepted. It related
to the disbandment and disarmament of the so-called Azad
Kashmir Forces and to certain northern areas. We, naturally,
insisted that we would stick to the resolution since we had
accepted it.

I shall not take the House into the details of the inter-
mediate stages. Ultimately, the Commission left it at that
since it could not reconcile our interpretation of these resolu-
tions with that of Pakistan. Later, there were other develop-
ments; Sir Owen Dixon and others came into the picture. In
the case of the last resolution passed by the Security Council,
a strange sea-change seemed to have been evident. This
resolution largely ignored what had been agreed to previously
between us and the Commission. Naturally, we objected and
pointed out that we could only be asked to do what we had
agreed to do. The two or three major points we had raised
and to which the Commission had agreed in writing are there
for anybody to see. The fact is that they were ignored in the
last resolution of the Security Council but the latter assured
us that there would be arbitration about the existing dis-
crepancies. We ventured to point out to the Security Council
our unwillingness to give up the previous agreement. Since
the fate of millions of people was involved, we were opposed
to submitting the dispute to an arbitrator. That is why we
voted against and rejected the resolution in the Security
Council. I greatly regret that, when this resolution came up
for discussion in the Security Council, two great countries,
who are friends of ours, took an exceedingly unfriendly line.
Their approach also seemed to me extremely illogical and
based on ignorance and on considerations which were
extraneous to the problem. Pakistan goes on saying that we
have spurned the United Nations and the Security Council.
I deny that. All that we have told the Security Council is that
we stand by our previous agreements and it is they who have
forgotten theirs. We are not prepared to accept anything

INDIA IS OPPOSED TO WAR

191

which either ignores the previous assurances given to us or
challenges our self-respect or independence or honour.
Pakistan is taking advantage of the fact that they agreed to
the last resolution in the Security Council and we did not.
Whatever was put forward later, happened to be to their
advantage and they quickly agreed to it.

•A great deal of fuss was made in the Security Council
and elsewhere because the Constituent Assembly was called to
meet in Kashmir. It was not anybody’s business to interfere
with the internal arrangements we had made in Kashmir.
We went to the Security Council with a simple complaint
concerning Pakistan’s aggression. It is odd that we l ive not
received any decision from the Security Council so far,
although Sir Owen Dixon did say three years after it had
happened that Pakistan’s action was a breach of inter-
national law. The conflict in Kashmir is between progress on
the one hand and reaction and bigotry on the other. I invite
hon. Members to go to Kashmir and see for themselves the
progress that has been made in spite of many difficulties.
There has been progress in economy, in all kinds of public
works, such as supplies and transport and, particularly, in the
agrarian system. The entire face of Kashmir has changed.
On the other side, in ‘Azad’ Kashmir, the conditions are, as
Maulana Saeed said, strikingly different. The fact of the
matter is that, from the psychological and the basic point of
view, the battle of Kashmir has been won and the terrible
shouting that is going on in Pakistan is the result of utter
frustration and the knowledge that they have lost the battle.
They have not lost it because of our Army or any army for
that matter but because the contrast between the ideal for
which the National Conference and Sheikh Abdullah fought
twenty years ago and the things for which Pakistan stands
today is so tremendous. We believe in the ideal of communal
unity and not in the two-nation theory. The Kashmiri is
convinced that the former is the right approach and that is
why Kashmir has slipped out of Pakistan’s grasp, thereby
completely upsetting its rulers. In the 'Azad’ Kashmir area,
there are continuous squabbles and quarrels and it has the
status of an occupied territory.

192 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

Some other matters between Pakistan and India still
remain to be settled. There is the matter of evacuee property
and canal waters. In regard to both we offered and still offer
them judicial determination by properly constituted courts of
Pakistan and India with prevision made for the final decision.

In foreign countries, so much has been said in connec-
tion with Kashmir and its rivers that one would think that
the rivers of Kashmir determine the destiny of Pakistan!
It has been suggested that unless Pakistan controls Kashmir,
the rivers will be diverted from their natural course and the
whole of Punjab will go dry! I would beg the House not to
mix up the so-called canal water question with the Kashmir
question, because the canal water question does not deal with
the rivers in Kashmir: it deals with the rivers in East and
West Punjab, about the rights of which we are, as I said,
prepared to have proper judicial determination. The rivers
which concerned Kashmir, as hon. Members should know,
are the Indus, the Jhelum and the Chenab. All that hon.
Members need do is to look at the map of Kashmir. They will
then realize that it is fantastic to mix up the Kashmir question
with the canal water issue. In England and America much
is made of this confusion.

I hope this crisis in our relations with Pakistan will pass. I
am convinced that the only thing that will ultimately settle
our various problems is fiiendliness. I am also convinced that
friendship is bound to come, in spite of bitterness in the inter-
vening period. If so, why should we not try to arrive at a
friendly settlement soon rather than pass through all kinds of
disasters and troubles? Regardless of the provocation
Pakistan has given us and in spite of the daily talk of jehad
and so on, we shall always be ready to solve every problem
peacefully and to develop friendly relations with Pakistan.
At the same time, we have to take every precaution against
the war with which we are being continually threatened. I
cannot detail to the House all the precautions we have taken
in the military sense. Suffice it to say that for more than a
month we have been giving the most careful thought to the
matter.

A good deal has been said about civil defence. Prof.

INDIA IS OPPOSED TO WAR

I9S

Shah's idea of civil defence appears to me to mean some kind
of conscription. It may be suggested on other grounds but it
is not exactly civil defence. I think it would be a very good
thing in this country — quite apart from the Pakistan issue —
if there were conscription by which every man, rich or poor,
was enlisted to do ordinary labour. So long as we do not
compel people like ourselves to take a spade and dig, I do not
think much good will be done to either our souls or the
country. We think we are very wise and clever because we sit
in offices with fountain pens in our hands. The idea that a
clerical job is a better one than others will ultimately degrade
the whole nation.

What exactly does civil defence mean? When pec pie talk
to me about it, I want them to talk intelligently and not just
throw the word vaguely at me. Do you call what Pakistan
is doing civil defence or do you mean something else?
Pakistan is digging trenches, having black-outs and talking
about fire brigades. I have definitely and, if I may say so,
rather aggressively opposed the idea of civil defence and will
continue to do so. I understand what I say and will not have
our people wasting their time digging trenches and getting
excited. By now, everybody has realized that morale counts
a great deal. I am a better builder up of morale than most
people know and I am determined to build up the morale
of this country. Morale is not built by the stage tricks
Pakistan seems to be practising. When I see attempts to
duplicate in India the trickery staged there it does not affect
me powerfully at all.

I was talking about Kashmir and the wonderful way in
which the people of Kashmir have risen to the occasion. I
deeply regret that a small section of the community, especially
in Jammu, has played a game which can only be of advan-
tage to Pakistan. It amazes me how the spirit of communal
fanaticism makes people blind even to their own interests
The Constituent Assembly is going to be elected next month
in Kashmir. The Hindus of Jammu are trying to put diffi-
culties in the way of the Constituent Assembly as well as in
the way of the National Conference and doing so in the most
vulgar language. This is immature and childish. If I am

194

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

anxious about anything today, it is the communal spirit in
India. Before I can deal with the communal spirit of Pakistan,
I want to deal with the communal spirit in India, the
communal spirit of the Hindus and Sikhs more than that of
the Muslims. I want this House to realize that this spirit
will stand in the way of our progress and weaken us. In the
event of a war, we cannot fight the enemy if mischief is done
behind our backs. No army can fight if its base is not strong.
Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that this wild and
vague communal talk be put an end to at once. I am stressing
this because people tend to express their great patriotism by
cursing Pakistan and the Muslims. I want this House and this
country to feel friendly to the people of Pakistan, because
those poor people are not much to blame anyhow. What
would you and I do in their place? If we had to read in the
newspapers and hear on the radio stories full of falsehoods
day in and day out, if we were enveloped in the atmosphere
of fright and fury all the time, we might not behave \ery
differently from them. It is not the fault of the people; but I do
blame those who are responsible for all this. It is a heavy
responsibility. It is not for me to say much about it. Anyhow,
let us not create a feeling of ill-will for the common people
there or for the country as a whole, because the feelings of
hatred and violence weaken us.

In the last fortnight or so, many important Muslim
organizations in the country have criticized Pakistan’s action
in the matter of Kashmir and some other matters and have
offered their full support to our Government and to us. I do
not always attach value to such things because people may
do this to gain favour but, in this instance, what has been said
to us represents the true feelings of the people concerned.
That is greater proof of our strength than several armies. It
means that our country is united in the face of danger. It
means that we strike at the very root of the two-nation theoty
that Pakistan stands for. We should work for cohesion and
make it dear to our minorities that it is our proud privilege
to give the fullest protection and opportunity to them. I
dislike the word ‘protection’ and the word ‘minority’, too.
For the moment I use them so that I may be clearly under-

INDIA IS OPPOSED TO WAR

195

stood but I want these words to cease to be.

Therefore, it is unwise to think in terms of civil defence.
We can dig trenches within twenty-four hours but, take it
from me, that we will not require them. Trenches are dug for
people who expect an invasion. Whatever happens, India is
not going to be invaded. Even if there is war, do you imagine
that we will wait idly to be invaded? Certainly not. That
is why we are not going to dig trenches and have black-outs.
In any case, I should like our people to put an end to the
black-outs inside them and not to lose themselves in passion,
fury, anger and hatred. I want them to take stock of the
situation coolly — not complacently, mind you — and to be
ready for every eventuality and to carry on their work
normally.

INDIA AND THE WORLD

A VOYAGE OF DISCOVERY

t have come to this country to learn something of your great

achievements. I have come also to convey the greetings of
my people and in the hope that my visit may help to create a
greater understanding between our respective peoples and
those strong and sometimes invisible links, stronger even
than physical links, that bind countries together. The
President referred the day before yesterday, in language of
significance, to my visit as a voyage of discovery of America.
The United States of America is not an unknown country
even in far-off India and many of us have grown up in
admiration of the ideals and objectives which have made this
country great. Yet, though we may know the history and
something of the culture of our respective countries, what is
required is a true understanding and appreciation of each
other even where we differ. Out of that understanding grows
fruitful co-operation in the pursuit of common ideals. What
the world today lacks most is, perhaps, understanding and
appreciation of one another among nations and people. I
have come here, therefore, on a voyage of discovery of the
mind and heart of America and to place before you our own
mind and heart. Thus, we may promote that understanding
and co-operation which, I feel sure, both our countries
earnestly desire. Already I have received a welcome here,
the generous warmth of which has created a deep impression
on my mind and, indeed, somewhat overwhelmed me.

During the last two days that I have been in Washington
I have paid visits to the memorials of the great builders of
this nation. I have done so not for the sake of mere formality
but because they have long been enshrined in my heart and
their example has inspired me as it has inspired innumerable

Speech in the House of Representatives and the Senate, Washington D.C.,
October 13, 1949

A VOYAGE OF DISCOVERY

197

countrymen of mine. These memorials are the real temples
to which each generation must pay tribute and, in doing so,
must catch something of the fire that burned in the hearts of
those who were the torchbearers of freedom, not onlv for this
country but for the world; for those who are truly great have
a message that cannot be confined within a particular country
but is for all the world.

In India, there came a man in our own generation who
inspired us to great endeavour, ever reminding us that
thought and action should never be divorced from moral
principle, that the true path of man is the path of truth and
peace. Under his guidance, we laboured for the free' om of
our country, with ill will to none and achieved that f'eedom.
We called him reverently and affectionately the Father of
our Nation. Yet he was too great for the circumscribed
borders of any one country and the message lie gave may well
help us in considering the wider problems of the world.

The United States of America has struggled to freedom
and unparalleled prosperity during the past century and a
half and today it is a great and powerful nation. It has an
amazing record of growth in material well-being and scientific
and technological advance. It could not have accomplished
this unless America had been anchored in the great principles
laid down in the early days of her history, for material pro-
gress cannot go far or last long unless it has its foundations in
moral principles and high ideals.

Those principles and ideals are enshrined in your
Declaration of Independence, which lays down as a self-
evident truth that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,
t-haf among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happi-
ness. It may interest you to know that, in drafting the
Constitution of the Republic of India, we have been greatly
influenced by your own Constitution. The preamble of our
Constitution states:

We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to
constitute India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic
and to secure to all its citizens :

Justice, social, economic and political;

14— llDPD/eS

198 JAWAHARI.AL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and
worship;

Equality of status and of opportunity; and to pro-
mote among them all Fraternity assuring the dignity
of the individual and the unity of the Nation;

In our Constituent Assembly do hereby adopt, enact

and give to ourselves this Constitution.

You will recognize in these words that I have quoted an
echo of the great voices of the founders of your Republic.
You will see that though India may speak to you in a voice
that you may not immediately recognize or that may perhaps
appear somewhat alien to you, yet that voice somewhat
strongly resembles what you have often heard before.

Yet, it is true that India’s voice is somewhat different; it
is not the voice of the old world of Europe but of the older
world of Asia. It is the voice of an ancient civilization, distinc-
tive, vital, which, at the same time, has renewed itself and
learned much from you and the other countries of the West.
It is, therefore, both old and new. It has its roots deep in the
past but it also has the dynamic urge of today.

But however the voices of India and the United States
may appear to differ, there is much in common between them.
Like you, we have achieved our freedom through a revolu-
tion, though our methods were different from yours. Like you
we shall be a republic based on the federal principle, which
is an outstanding contribution of the founders of this great
Republic. In a vast country like India, as in this great
Republic of the United States, it becomes necessary to have
a delicate balance between central control and State auto-
nomy. We have placed in the forefront of our Constitution
those fundamental human rights to which all men who love
liberty, equality and progress aspire — the freedom of the
individual, the equality of men and the rule of law. We enter,
therefore, the community of free nations with the roots of
democracy deeply embedded in our institutions as well as in
the thoughts of our people.

We have achieved political freedom but our revolution is
not yet complete and is still in progress, for political freedom
without the assurance of the right to live and to pursue happi-

A VOYAGE OF DISCOVERY

199

ness, which economic progress alone can bring, can never
satisfy a people. Therefore, our immediate task is to raise the
living standards of our people, to remove all that comes
in the way of the economic growth of the nation. We have
tackled the major problem of India, as it is today the major
problem of Asia, the agrarian problem. Much that was
feudal in our system of land tenure is being changed so that
the fruits of cultivation should go to the tiller of the soil and
that he may be secure in the possession of the land he culti-
vates. In a country of which agriculture is still the principal
industry, this reform is essential not only for the well-being
and contentment of the individual but also for the ; ability
of society. One of the main causes of social instability in
many parts of the world, more especially in Asia, is agrarian
discontent due to the continuance of systems of land
tenure which are completely out of place in the modern
world. Another — and one which is also true of the greater
part of Asia and Africa — is the low standard of living of the
masses.

India is industrially more developed than many less
fortunate countries and is reckoned as the seventh or eighth
among the world’s industrial nations. But this arithmetical
distinction cannot conceal the poverty of the great majority
of our people. To remove this proverty by greater produc-
tion, more equitable distribution, better education and
better health, is the paramount need and the most pressing
task before us and we are determined to accomplish this
task. We realize that self-help is the first condition of success
for a nation, no less than for an individual. We are conscious
that ours must be the primary effort and we shall seek succour
from none to escape from any part of our own responsibility.
But though our economic potential is great, its conversion
into finished wealth will need much mechanical and techno-
logical aid. We shall, therefore, gladly welcome such aid
and co-operation on terms that are of mutual benefit. We
believe that this may well help in the solution of the larger
problems that confront the world. But we do not seek any
material advantage in exchange for any part of our hard-
won freedom.

200

JAWAHAKLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

The objectives of our foreign policy are the preservation
of world peace and enlargement of human freedom. Two
tragic wars have demonstrated the futility of warfare. Victory
without the will to peace achieves no lasting result and victor
and vanquished alike suffer from deep and grievous wounds
and a common fear of the future. May I venture to say that
this is not an incorrect description of the world of today?
It is not flattering either to man’s reason or to our common
humanity. Must this unhappy state persist and the power
of science and wealth continue to be harnessed to the
service of destruction? Every nation, great or small, has to
answer this question and the greater a nation, the greater
is its responsibility to find and to work for the right
answer.

India may be new to world politics and her military
strength insignificant in comparison with that of the giants of
our epoch. But India is old in thought and experience and
has travelled through trackless centuries in the adventure of
life. Throughout her long history she has stood for peace and
every prayer that an Indian raises, ends with an invocation
to peace. It was out of this ancient and yet young India that
Mahatma Gandhi arose and he taught us a technique of
action that was peaceful; yet it was effective and yielded
results that led us not only to freedom but to friendship
with those with whom we were, till yesterday, in conflict.
How far can that principle be applied to wider spheres of
action? I do not know, for circumstances differ and the
means to prevent evil have to be shaped and set to the nature
of the evil. Yet I have no doubt that the basic approach
which lay behind that technique of action was the right
approach in human affairs and the only approach that ulti-
mately solves a problem satisfactorily. We have to achieve
freedom and to defend it. We have to meet aggression and to
resist it and the force employed must be adequate to the
purpose. But even when preparing to resist aggression, the
ultimate objective, the objective of peace and reconciliation,
must never be lost sight of and heart and mind must be
attuned to this supreme aim and not swayed or clouded by
hatred or fear.

FRIENDLY CO-OPERATION

201

This is the basis and the goal of our foreign policy. We
are neither blind to reality nor do we propose to acquiesce in
any challenge to man’s freedom from whatever quarter it
may come. Where freedom is menaced or justice threatened
or where aggression takes place, we cannot be and shall not
be neutral. What we plead for and endeavour to practise in
our 'own imperfect way is a binding faith in peace and an
unfailing endeavour of thought and action to ensure it. The
great democracy of the United States of America will, I feel
sure, understand and appreciate our approach to life's
problems because it could not have any other aim or a
different ideal. Friendship and co-operation betwc m our
two countries are, therefore, natural. I stand here to offer
both in the pursuit of justice, liberty and peace.

FRIENDLY CO-OPERATION

I have been in the United States for exactly eight days
today. It is not a very long time. Yet I was surprised when
I suddenly realized that it was only eight days ago that I had
come, because during these eight days so much of significance
has happened in my life. Experience and emotion have so
piled up, one on top of the other, that I have the feeling that
I have been here for a long time. Sometimes, when there are
no new experiences, time seems to stop. I have had this
experience of time stopping for months and years in my life
— a curious experience. And sometimes time seems to race
on; rather, one feels as if it were racing on, although very
little of it may have passed. So, during these eight days, much
has happened to me which has not only powerfully affected
me in the present but has left upon me its deep imprint,
which I shall carry with me and remember for a very long
time.

Address to the East and West Association, the Foreign Policy Association,
the India League of America and the Institute of Pacific Relations, New York,
October 19, 1949

202

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

During these days, I have repeatedly had occasion to
speak in public and my programme has often been a very
full one. 1 knew that I was to come to this great banquet
tonight. And I knew also that I had to speak here but I
must apologize to you because I was expected, I am told, to
prepare a written address, which I have not done. I have
not done it, partly because I dislike very much this process
of writing down speeches in advance, partly because I was not
used to doing it in India and partly because, if I may
confess it with all humility, I just forgot about it.

But in the main, may I say that the real reason at the
back of my mind, the sub-conscious reason, was a growing
feeling of confidence, of being among my friends here in this
country. I began to feel more and more at home and so I
thought I could perhaps take the liberty of having a friendly
talk with you rather than deliver a formal address.

If I may indulge in a bit of personal history, I might
inform you that I began what is called public speaking at a
fairly late stage in my life. I was at college in Cambridge. I
joined a well-known debating society. But I never had the
courage to speak there, in spite of the fact that they actually
had a system of fining the members who did not speak eveiy
term. I paid the fine willingly.

It was many years later, through the force of circum-
stances rather than anything else, that I started addressing
public audiences. I began with the peasantiy of my province.
They didn’t think and I didn’t think -that 1 was delivering
a public speech at all. But I used to meet them and talk
to them and those talks gradually attracted more and more
people. Yet they remained just personal talks. I didn’t
feel shy with them because they were very simple folk.
And so, very slowly I got over this inhibition, this difficulty
of speaking in public. But I retained that manner of
speaking, that is to say, of speaking to friends as if we
were having a quiet talk together, even when the audiences
grew and became colossal in number. So, if I speak to
you in a somewhat rambling fashion, you will forgive me.
I need hardly say how overwhelmed I am by the magni-
ficence of this occasion and by the very distinguished

FRIENDLY CO OPERATION

203

gathering that is present here. In spite of all that has been
said about me by previous speakers, I am not a very aggres-
sive person in public gatherings and I feel at times a little
afraid of them. I am very grateful to the four host
organizations for organizing this function. And may I say in
this connection that I am grateful not only for this occasion
but even more so to all the Americans who, in the course of
the past many years, sent us their goodwill: and not only
sent their goodwill but gave us their active support in the
struggle for our freedom. I need not say anything to my own
fellow countrymen here, because it was expected of them to
give of their best. But it was very heartening to us n those
days of struggle and conflict and ups and downs to hear the
voices of goodwill and friendship and sympauiy from
America. I remember that on the last occasion, the beginning
of my last term of imprisonment, a number of very distin-
guished citizens in America issued a manifesto — I think it
was addressed to the President of the United States —
appealing to him to take some action in regard to India.
May I also say that all of us in India know very well, although
it might not be so known in public, what great interest
President Roosevelt had in our country’s freedom and how
he exercised his great influence to that end.

I have come to America for many reasons, personal and
public. I have come after a long time of waiting because I
have always wanted to come here ever since I was a student
in England. But events took a different course soon after I
went back to India and my travels and journeys were very’
limited. In the last two or three years, other limiting factors
have come in and I could not come here earlier.

Originally, perhaps, it was curiosity that impelled me to
come here. But in later years, more and more the thought
came to me that it was necessary, it was desirable and
perhaps, inevitable that India and the United States should
know each other more and co-operate with each other more.
In a sense that co-operation in the past could hardly be
called co-operation, because a subject country does not
co-operate with a great and powerful nation. But since we
have become independent, that idea took more definite

204

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

shape. Though even now we may be a big country and we
may have great potential resources, as we do have, never-
theless, we are new to these fields of international activity and
in the terms that the world measures nations today, we are
weak. We have no atom bomb at our disposal. We have
no great forces at our command, military or other. Econo-
mically we are weak. And these are the standards — the
yard measures — of a nation’s importance today. We are
strong in some ways — at least potentially so. Any person
who can look ahead a little can say with a measure of con-
fidence that India is bound to make good even in those
material ways which count for so much in the world. All
the factors are present there and the whole course of present-
day history points to that. Anyhow, the time has come when
we can look more towards the United States with some
feeling of confidence which is necessary before we can really
develop co-operative relations.

These relations cannot exist when one country is very
weak and the other very strong. We are weak in some ways
but there is one lesson we learned many years ago from our
great leader, Mahatma Gandhi, in the days when we were
still weaker. Our people, though they were unarmed, with
no wealth or other outward symbol of strength at their
command, faced a powerful and wealthy empire which had
been in India for a large number of years.

It was a strange contest. I look back to that period just
thirty years ago when Mahatma Gandhi, in a sense, burst
upon the Indian scene. He was, of course, known before and
loved and admired for his work in South Africa but he had
not functioned on an all-India plane. He suddenly started
functioning. And there was some magic about the message
he gave. It was very simple. His analysis of the situation in
India was essentially that we were suffering terribly from
fear, especially the masses in India and even others. So he
just went about telling us, 'Don’t be afraid. Why are you
afraid? What can happen to you?’ Of course, when he
talked in these terms he was thinking of the political fear
that we had. If we did something that the British Government
did not like, well, we’d be punished. We’d be sent to prison.

FRIENDLY CO OPERATION

205

We might be shot. And so a general sense of fear pervaded
the place. It would take hold of the poorest peasant, the
lowliest of all our people, whose produce or nearly all of it
went to his landlord and who hardly had enough food to eat.
This poor man was kicked and cuffed by everybody — by his
landlord, by his landlord’s agent, by the police, by the
moneylender. Everybody with whom he came into contact
just pushed him about and he simply accepted it as something
that fate had ordained for him. Whether there was something
in the atmosphere or some magic in Gandhi’s voice, I do
not know. Anyhow, this very simple thing, ‘Don’t be afraid,’
when he put it that way caught on and we realized with a
tremendous lifting of hearts, that there was nothing to fear.
Even the poor peasant straightened his back a little and began
to look people in the face and there was a ray of hope in his
sunken eyes. In effect, a magical change had come over
India.

There were many ups and downs. THU leaching of his
— ‘Do not be afraid’ — kepi us going and we found really
that there was nothing to fear. Fear was something we had
created. We went to prison in tens and hundreds of
thousands. It was uncomfortable and many people endured
a great deal of pain and suffering. But we found that it all
depended on the way one looked at it. Obviously, if we had
gone to prison for some high misdemeanour with disgrace
attached to it, it would have been terribly painful. But
because we felt we were serving a great cause, it became
not a thing to be afraid of but something to be coveted. I put
this to you, because, in the world today, we are again —
compared with the great nations — weak. If there is an armed
conflict, we are weak. As I said, we have no atom bomb. But
if I may say so, we rejoice in not having the atom bomb.

So while innumerable difficulties have surrounded us and
sometimes tried to overwhelm us, we have never lost heart.
The one thing that has really been painful and has hurt us
has been our own inner weakness. We have lost all fear of
external aggression. Not that we are impractical or idealistic
though it is good to be idealistic and we are that to some
extent. After the last thirty years’ experience, however, we

206

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

shall not be afraid of external aggression, unless, of course,
we ourselves go to pieces. That would be our fault. What
has pained us is our own inner weakness, because that has
sometimes made us doubt ourselves.

I mention this, because elsewhere I have talked about
this fear complex that governs the world today. It is a curious
thing. It is like the fear of a man who possesses a great deal
of property and is continually afraid of losing it or of some-
body stealing it; he lives in a state of constant apprehension.
Possibly, he might lead a more comfortable and happier life
if he didn’t have it and didn’t have this continual apprehen-
sion. However that may be, there is this fear complex all
over. I do not say there is no justification for it. There is
justification for it in this world. We have seen terrible things
happen and terrible things may happen again. Any person
in a place of responsibility cannot become totally irrespon-
sible about the future. He has to guard against it. He must
take steps to prevent the terrible things from happening.
That is true. Nevertheless, this approach of fear is, from
every point of view, the worst of all approaches. It is bad for
one’s self; it is bad for others. Some of you may be acquainted
with wild animals. I have had some little acquaintance — not
very much — and have found and am convinced that no
animal attacks man, except very rarely, unless the animal is
afraid. Sometimes, the fear in the man transfers itself
psychologically to the animal. The man becomes afraid of
the animal and then the animal becomes afraid of him and,
between them, they make a mess of it. I know numerous
cases of individuals who go into the jungles without a gun
or arms and are never attacked by any animal, because
they are not afraid of any animal and the wild animals come
and they look them in the face and the animals pass by. Well,
it is perhaps not fair to compare wild animals with men.
Nevertheless, the analogy, I think, holds. One party gets
afraid. One nation gets afraid, then the other gets afraid and
so the fear rises to a crescendo and leads to deplorable
consequences. I do not know if it is possible to divert this
emotion to other channels. While one must take all steps to
prevent an evil happening, one must also shed fear and act

tufa

FRIENDLY CO-OPERATION

207

with a great deal of confidence, because that confidence
itself brings confidence to the others who are afraid. And
so we can gradually change the atmosphere in which we
live.

India has been, for the last two years or more, an
independent country. In another three months or so, we will
•formally inaugurate our Republic. That will be no addition
to our freedom, except in the sense that it will be a confir-
mation of it and certain forms which exist now will go. Our
purpose and our desire in the present is to be left in peace
to work out our problems, not in isolation certainly, but in
co-operation with others. We have got enormous p’oblems.
Every country has problems, of course. But the fact of
150 years of foreign rule, which resulted possibly in some
good here and there, certainly resulted in stunting and
arresting the growth of the people and of the country in
many ways. Because it arrested the growth of the country,
it arrested the solution of many problems that normally
would have solved themselves — either by conflict or in
peace; problems are solved and always a new equilibrium
is established somehow or other. But because there was
an overriding authority — that is, the British power in
India — it prevented that natural equilibrium from being
established in India from time to time and many things
continued in India, which were completely out of date
and out of place and which had no strength behind them,
no roots in them. They were kept up, propped up, by
an external authority. And so, problems accumulated
— social, economic, political. As soon as the British left
India, suddenly we had to face all those problems. We knew,
of course, that we would have to face them. It was a big
change. It was brought about co-operatively and peacefully
and rather remarkably, for which credit is due to both the
parties concerned, England and India. Nevertheless, however
peacefully it was brought about, those arrested problems
suddenly emerged. Not only did they emerge but all our
people, who had been waiting for long years for political
freedom, expected great things to come — great things in the
sense of material betterment. Certainly, we wanted these

208

JAWAHARLAI, NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949 1953

great things to come. Certainly, we had told them 'that
freedom confined to the political sphere would not be enough.
It has no meaning to give a vote to a starving man.

We had talked to the people in economic terms also and
they expected a tremendous change suddenly, rather un-
reasonably, because these magic changes cannot take place
suddenly. Just at this moment came other things — came
the partition of India. It came without our liking it. We
were apprehensive of the consequences; therefore, we had
resisted it. Ultimately, we came to the conclusion that
Partition was probably a lesser evil than the continuation
of an inner conflict which was delaying our freedom. We
were anxious to have that freedom as quickly as possible.
So we agreed to the partition. That Partition, as it turned
out to be in its consequences, was far worse than even what
we had anticipated. It was the cutting up of a living structure,
of everything — all our Services, whether the Army or civil
Services, transport and railways, communications, tele-
phones, telegraphs and the postal system, irrigation and
canals. Many families, domestic households, were suddenly
cut in two. An extraordinary situation arose overnight. It
created tremendous new problems, among which were
upheavals, deplorable happenings and killings and then vast
migrations. All our energies, that ought to have been devoted
to constructive effort, to economic betterment, which we
had planned for years previously, suddenly had to be applied
to tackle these new problems. We had 410 time or leisure or
resources left to deal with the other and more basic problems.
Nevertheless, the world didn’t stop. India could not stop.
And we did try to deal with the basic problems to some
extent.

Our basic problem is the land problem, as it is all over
Asia. And we have gone pretty far in changing the whole
antiquated and unfair land system in India. We are putting
an end to the great landed estates and giving the land to the
peasant, compensating the previous owner. This process is
going on now. Some months ago, in my own province in
India, that is, the United Provinces, which is the biggest
province and has the enormous population of about sixty

FRIENDLY CO-OPERATION

209

millions, we introduced a great reform in local self-govern-
ment. In all the villages, a vast number of villages, every
adult voted in what was probably one of the biggest elections
that any country has had. We are going to have that all over
India. That particular reform in local self-government,
affecting all the villages, was really initiated some years ago
when my sister, who is our Ambassador here, was the
Minister for local self-government in that province. Now,
this is an extraordinary and a most interesting experiment
Partly it is new. Partly it is going back to village self-
government that existed before the British came. Anyhow, it
is a tremendous experiment in democracy, in portant
perhaps, because it is more basic than the Assemble that we
may choose at the top. So, all these things have gone on.
We are also proceeding with big river valley schemes which
are basic for our development. All that has happened. But
I want you to realize the background in which we have
functioned. It has been made difficult by die after-effects of
the war — and by all the other things that have happened.
Still, 1 have little doubt that India is making good and going
ahead.

There is a great deal of talk of Asia being a unit. Asia is
in a sense a geographical unit, has been a unit in many other
ways but in the main it was a unit in a negative sense. That
is to say, practically all of Asia became the colonial domain
of various European Powers. It was a unit in that sense; a
Colonial domain where various different peoples were strug-
gling for freedom against European imperialists; it was a
unit because of their struggles and a certain commonness of
purpose. But there is, at the same time, a great deal of diver-
sity. It is not quite correct to think of Asia as a compact
unit. There is not very much in common between the
Chinese and those who live in Western Asia; they represent
entirely different cultural, historical and other backgrounds.
So also, you can separate other regions of Asia. There is
the Far Eastern region, the Middle Eastern, the Arab, the
Iranian and the rest. Now whichever region you may take,
India inevitably comes into the picture. The Arab world
may have nothing to do with the Chinese world or with

210

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

South-East Asia — something perhaps but not much. But
India has a great deal to do with the Middle Eastern world,
has a great deal to do with the Chinese world and a great
deal to do with South-East Asia. India, geographically speak-
ing, is a pivot; it is centrally situated from the strategic as
well as every other point of view.

I have said that we have no desire to play a leading role
in the international sphere except when we are compelled by
circumstances. People talk about India’s desire for leadership
in Asia. We have no desire for leadership anywhere. Our
greatest anxiety and yearning today is to build up India and
to solve somehow the problems that face us; and then, in so
far as we can, to serve the other good causes we have at
heart in Asia and in the rest of the world and to co-operate
with other countries in the United Nations and elsewhere.
Whether we want to or not, we realize that we simply cannot
exist in isolation. No country can. Certainly we cannot. Our
geography, our history, the present events, all drag us into
a wider picture.

I have been asked whether it had struck me that there
might be a certain parallel between the United States in the
early years and India. It has, in the sense that a big country
grew up here. Certain relatively smaller countries were
around it — to the south especially — and economically and
otherwise they were influenced greatly by the presence of
this dominating country in the north. So, I was asked how
the presence of a big country like India affected the
surrounding smaller countries and whether it had the same
type of effect. The parallel is not exact. Nevertheless, there is
much in it. Whether we want to or not, in India we have
to play an important role. It is not to our liking, because we
have enough burdens of our own and we do not wish to add
to them. But, as I said, we just can’t choose in the matter.
India, in Southern, Western and South-Eastern Asia, has
to play a distinctive and important role. If she is not capable
of playing it properly, then she will just fade out.

I am quite convinced that there is no question of India
fading out. Therefore, only the other role remains. Because of
that and also because the United States is playing a vital role

FRIENDLY CO OPERATION

211

in world affairs today — again hardly from choice but through
the development of certain circumstances, through necessity
almost — it seems natural for an Indian to think of closer
relations with the American people and this great country.
1 think and 1 have been told that it is natural, in the present
context, for many Americans to think of the importance of
India in this respect. Therefore, the question of India and the
United States understanding each other and developing
closer relations is not only important from the point of view
of these two countries but has a larger importance and
significance.

Whether India has anything special to teach to the United
States, I do not know. That is for you to judge. Certainly, I
have not come to the United States to teach anybody any-
thing. I have come here to impiove my own education as far
as possible, to learn something from America and to learn
something about the world through American eyes, because
both are important for me. 1 believe I still letain something
of the spirit of a student and the curiosity of youth. It is not
only this curiosity but rather a compelling necessity that
makes me feel that I ought or rather that we in India ought
to understand America better. Whether we agree with
everything that the United States does or does not do is
another matter.

This business of agreeing or not agreeing might be looked
at in many ways. I think it is a wrong approach for any
country or any people to expect complete agreement with
another country or people about all things or to expect a
duplication of their own ways and methods of thinking and
action and life in the other country. The world naturally
grows more uniform. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of
variety in it, not only external variety in ways of life but a
mental and emotional variety, too, because of different
backgrounds and historical developments. If we seek to
understand a people, we have to try to put ourselves, as far
as we can. in that particular historical and cultural back-
ground. Normally, people do not make such an attempt at
all. They feel rather irritated that the other person is so
unlike them or does things in a different way. No attempt is

212

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

made to understand, except rarely. I have an idea that many
of our present problems — international troubles — are due
to the fact that the emotional and cultural backgrounds of
people differ so much. It is not easy for a person from one
country to enter into the background of another country.
So, there is great irritation, because a fact that seems obvious
to us is not immediately accepted by the other party or
doesn’t seem obvious to him at all. Even when we understand
the other party’s background we may not be able to convince
him or he may not be able to convince us. But that extreme
irritation will go when we think, not that the other person
is either exceedingly stupid or exceedingly obstinate in not
recognizing a patent fact as we see it but that he is just
differently conditioned and simply can’t get out of that
condition. If you understand that, perhaps, your approach
to him will be different from that blatant, direct approach
which ends in this direct and blatant approach to you and
which ultimately ends in the mutual use of strong language
without the least understanding of each other’s mind or
function. One has to recognize that, whatever the future may
hold, countries and people differ in their approach and their
ways, in their approach to life and their way of living and
thinking. In order to understand them we have to understand
their ways of life and approach. If we wish to convince them,
we have to use their language as far as we can, not language
in the narrow sense of the word but the language of the
mind. That is one necessity. Something that goes even much
further than that is not the appeal to logic and reason but
some kind of emotional awareness of the other people.

If I may refer again to my personal experience during
the eight days of my stay here, I have met many Americans.
I had met distinguished Americans during the past years in
India and in Europe. I have studied a good deal of American
history. I have read a good many famous American
periodicals. So, I have a fair knowledge, as far as a foreigner
can have, of the American background. Nevertheless, the last
eight days here have brought to me, although sub-consciously
— because I made my mind receptive to impressions and
influences — some kind of an emotional awareness, apart

FRIENDLY CO-OPERATION

21S

from an intellectual understanding, of the American people.
People tell me — and it is very likely — that I can’t know what
the United States of America is after just three days in
Washington and a week in New York. Nevertheless, even
my present experience has brought that emotional awareness
to me, which helps me much more in understanding the
American people and the United States than all my previous
reading and intellectual effort. Therefore, this kind of
personal contact and receptivity of mind is helpful and,
indeed, desirable.

You will not expect me to say that I admire everything
that I find here in the United States. I don’t. The United
States has got a reputation abroad — Mrs. Roosevelt referred
to it — of being materialistic and of being tough in matters of
money. Well, I could not imagine that any country could
achieve greatness even in the material field without some
basic moral and spiritual background. Also, Americans are
supposed to be very hardheaded businessmen. I have found
a very great deal of generosity and an enormous amount of
hospitality and friendliness. Now, all this creates that emo-
tional atmosphere that helps in the development of friendly
relations and in the understanding of individuals as well as
nations. I shall go back from here much richer than I came,
richer in experience, richer in the fund of memories that I
take back and richer in the intellectual and emotional
understanding and appreciation of the people of this great
country.

Someone referred to the part that the women of India
played in our struggle for fredom. There is no doubt that
the part the women of India played was not only significant
but of paramount importance in that struggle; it made all
the difference in the world. I am quite convinced that in
India today progress can be and should be measured by the
progress of the women of India. In a political and outward
sense they had fewer barriers to face than the women of
some European countries and, perhaps, even here; I mean in
regard to the vote and other things. They had to face certain
social barriers which you have not had. Our political move-
ment swept away many of those social barriers and brought

IJ— II DFD/63

214 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

the women out. That shows that our political movement was
something much more than a political movement, because
it affected the lives of all classes of people. It touched those
unfortunate people who had suffered so long, who are called
the untouchables. They are not all untouchables; politically
speaking, they are called untouchables. The movement
affected them, affected the country’s reaction to them. It
affected women. It affected children. It affected the
peasantry, the industrial workers and others. So, it was a
vital movement which affected every class and every group
in India. That is what a real movement should be. And in
this movement the women of India, undoubtedly, played an
exceedingly important part. Today, as perhaps you know,
we have women in our Central cabinet and I believe in one
or two provincial cabinets also. We had a woman governor
in our biggest province. We have a woman among our
ambassadors. In almost all fields of work our women take an
active part.

ASIA IS RENASCENT

1 am happy to be in the capital of this great Dominion and to
bring to you the greetings and good wishes of the Govern-
ment and people of India. During the past twelve months, it
has been my privilege to be associated in important discussions
with your Prime Minister, Mr St. Laurent, and your
Secretary of State, Mr Pearson. We have had to consider
many difficult problems and I am revealing no secret when
I say that our point of view and that of Canada were identical
or very near to each other on almost every issue. In particular,
I should like to refer to the spirit of understanding shown
by your Government and your representative at the meeting
of Dominion Prime Ministers, held in London last April,
in the determination of our future relationship with the

Speech delivered in the Canadian Parliament Ottawa, October 24, 1949

ASIA IS RENASCENT

215

Commonwealth. That spirit is in the great tradition of your
leaders, Sir John MacDonald, Sir Wilfred Laurier and your
last Prime Minister, Mr Mackenzie King, who is happily
still with us. That tradition has been one of association with
the Commonwealth in complete freedom, unfettered by
any outside control. Canada has been a pioneer in the evolu-
tion of this relationship and, as such, one of the builders of
the Commonwealth as an association of free and equal
nations. India, as you know, will soon become a republic
but will remain a member of the Commonwealth. Our past
co-operation will not, therefore, cease or alter with the
change in our status. On the contrary, it w ill hr.v’e the
greater strength because common endeavour denves from
a sense that it is inspired and sustained by the free will of
free peoples. I am convinced that this developmer <l in the
history of the Commonwealth, without parallel elsewhere or
at any other time, is a significant step towards peace and
co-operation in the world.

Of even greater significance is the manner of its achieve-
ment. Only a few years ago, Indian nationalism was in
conflict with British imperialism and that conflict brought in
its train ill will, suspicion and bitterness, although because
of the teaching of our great leader Mahatma Gandhi, there
was far less ill will than in any other nationalist struggle
against foreign domination. Who would have thought then
that suspicion and bitterness would largely fade away so
rapidly, giving place to friendly co-operation between free
and equal nations? That is an achievement for which all
those who are concerned with it can take legitimate credit.
It is an outstanding example of the peaceful solution of
difficult problems and a solution that is a real one because it
does not create other problems. The rest of the world might
well pay heed to this example.

Canada is a vast country and its extent is continental. It
faces Europe across the Atlantic and Asia across the Pacific.
Past history explains youi preoccupation, thus far, with
European affairs Past history as well as geography explains
the depth and intimacy of our interest in Asia. But in the
world of today, neither you nor we can afford to be purely

216 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

national or even continental in our outlook; the world has
become too small for that. If we do not all co-operate and
live at peace with one another, we stumble on one another
and clutch at one another’s throats.

We talk of the East and the West, of the Orient and the
Occident and yet these divisions have little reality. In fact,
the so-called East is geographically the West tor you. During
the last two or three hundred years, some European nations
developed an industrial civilization and thus became different
in many ways from the East which was still primarily
agricultural. The new strength that technical advance gave
them added to their wealth and power and an era of colonia-
lism and imperialism began during which the greater part
of Asia came under the domination of some countries of
Europe. In the long perspective of history this was a brief
period and already we are seeing the end of it. The imperia-
lism which was at its height during the last century and a
half has largely faded away and only lingers in a few countries
today. There can be little doubt that it will end in these
remaining countries also and the sooner it ends the better
for the peace and security of the world.

Asia, the mother of continents and the cradle of history’s
major civilizations, is renascent today. The dawn of its
newly acquired freedom is turbulent because during these
past two centuries its growth was arrested, frustration was
widespread and new forces appeared. These forces were
essentially nationalist, seeking political freedom; but behind
them was the vital urge for bettering the economic condi-
tion of the masses of the people. Where nationalism was
thwarted there was conflict, as there is conflict today where
it is being thwarted, for example, in South-East Asia. To
regard the present unsettled state of South-East Asia as a result
or as part of an ideological conflict would be a dangerous
error. The troubles and discontents of this part of the world
and indeed of the greater part of Asia are the result of
obstructed freedom and dire poverty. The remedy is to accele-
rate the advent of freedom and to remove them. If this is
achieved, Asia will become a powerful factor for stability and
peace. The philosophy of Asia has been and is the philosophy

ASIA IS RENASCENT

217

of peace.

There is another facet to the Asian situation to which
reference must be made. The so-called revolt of Asia is the
legitimate striving of ancient and proud peoples against the
arrogance of certain Western nations. Racial discrimination
is still in evidence in some countries and there is still not
enough realization of the importance of Asia in the councils
of the world.

India’s championship for freedom and racial equality in
Asia as well as in Africa is a natural urge of the facts of
geography and history. India desires no leadership or
dominion or authority over any country. Bur v»e are
compelled by circumstances to play our part in Asia and in
the world, because we are convinced that unless th se basic
problems of Asia are solved, there can be no world peace.
Canada, with her traditions of democracy, her sense of justice
and her love for fair play, should be able to understand our
purpose and our motives and to use her growing wealth
and power to extend the horizons of freedom, to promote
order and liberty and to remove want and thus to ensure
lasting peace.

India is an old nation and yet today she has within her
something of the spirit and dynamic quality of youth. Some of
the vital impulses which gave strength to India in past ages
inspire us still and, at the same time, we have learned much
from the West in social and political values, in science and
technology. We have still much to learn and much to do,
especially in the application of science to problems of social
well-being. We have gained political freedom and the urgent
task before us today is to improve rapidly the economic
conditions of our people and to fight relentlessly against
poverty and social ills. We are determined to apply ourselves
to these problems and to achieve success. We have the will
and the natural resources and the human material to do so
and our immediate task is to harness them for human better-
ment. For this purpose, it is essential for us to have a period
of peaceful development and co-operation with other nations.

The peace of one country cannot be assured unless there
is peace elsewhere also. In this narrow and contracting world.

218

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

war and peace and freedom are becoming indivisible. There-
fore, it is not enough for one country to secure peace within
its own borders but it is also necessary that it should
endeavour, to its utmost capacity, to help in the maintenance
of peace all over the world.

The world is full of tension and conflict today. Behind
this tension lies an ever growing fear that is the parent of so
many ills. There are also economic causes that can be reme-
died only by economic means. There can be no security or
real peace if vast numbers of people in various parts of the
world live in poverty and misery. Nor, indeed, can there be
a balanced economy for the world as a whole if the un-
developed parts continue to upset that balance and to drag
down even the more prosperous nations. Both for economic
and political reasons, therefore, it has become essential to
develop these undeveloped regions and to raise the standards
of the people there. Technical advance and industrialization
in these regions will not mean any injury to those countries
which are already highly industrialized. International trade
grows as more and more countries produce more goods and
supply the wants of mankind. Our industrialization has a
predominantly social aim to meet the pressing wants of the
great majority of our own people.

This age we live in has been called the atomic age. Vast
new sources of energy are being tapped but instead of think-
ing of them in terms of service and betterment of mankind,
men’s thoughts turn to destructive purposes. Destruction
by these new and terrible weapons of war can only lead to
unparalleled disaster for all concerned and yet people talk
lightly of war and bend their energies to prepare for it. A
very distinguished American said the other day that the use
of the atom bomb might well be likened to setting a house
on fire in order to rid it of some insects and termites.

Dangers, undoubtedly, threaten us and we must be on
our guard against them and take all necessary precautions.
But we must always remember that the way to serve or
protect mankind is not to destroy the house in which it lives
and all that it contains.

The problem of maintaining world peace and of divert-

ASIA IS RENASCENT

219

ing our minds and energies lo that end thus becomes one o£
paramount importance. All of us talk of peace and the
desirability of it but do we all serve it faithfully and
earnestly? Even in our struggle for freedom, our great
leader showed us the path of peace. In the larger context of
the world, we must inevitably follow that path to the best
of oiir ability. I am convinced that Canada, like India, is
earnestly desirous of maintaining peace and freedom. Both
our respective countries believe in democracy and the
democratic method and in individual and national freedom.
In international affairs, therefore, our objectives are similar
and we have found no difficulty thus far in co-opera ing for
the achievement of these aims. I am here to asuire the
Government and people of Canada of our earnest desire to
work for these ends in co-opeiation with them. The differences
that have existed in our minds about the East and the West
have little substance today and we are all partners in the
same great undertaking. I have little doubt that in spite of
the dangers that beset the world today, the forces of construc-
tive and co-operative effort for human betterment will
succeed and the spirit of man will triumph again.

I thank you again, Sir, and the hon. Members of this
Parliament, who shoulder a great responsibility, for your
friendly and cordial welcome and for your good wishes for
my country. I realize that this welcome was extended to me
not as an individual but as a representative and a symbol
of my nation and I am sure that my people will appreciate
and welcome the honour you have done them and will look
forward to fruitful harmony of endeavour between our two
countries for the accomplishment of common tasks.

Avant de conclure, Monsieur le Premier Ministre, je
voudrais bien dire quelques mots dans la langue francaise.
Je regrette que je n’ai pas la maitrise de parler longuement
dans cette belle langue. Mais je vous assure que nous 1’aimons
vivement, et je vous apporte, vous canadiens francais, les
salutations et les voeus chaleureux due peuple et du govern-
ment de 1'Inde, auequels j’ajoute les miens.

Our policy is positive

P erhaps it will suit the convenience of the House if I make
some kind of a general statement about the work we are
doing and the policy we are attempting to pursue in regard to
our foreign affairs.

I shall not endeavour to go into the intricate details of
what is happening all over the world, although, situated as
we are and being an independent country of substance and
importance, it is quite impossible for us to keep away from
the many things that happen in the various parts of the
world. Ever since India became independent, we have been
interested in these various happenings all over the world.
Indeed, we were interested in foreign affairs even before.
But the first thing that we kept in view was to build our own
country on solid foundations and not to get entangled in
matters which did not directly affect us. Not that we are not
interested in those matters but the burden of these entangle-
ments would be too great and, as the House knows, the
problems we had to face in our own country were big enough
for any country to face.

Our general approach has been, as far as possible, one of
non-interference in the various conflicts in other parts of the
world. As the House may judge, we have followed this policy
with greater or less success. Of course, as a Member of the
United Nations, we have to participate in debates and express
our opinion. In many subsidiary organs of the United Nations
dealing with other matters, we had to express our opinion,
particularly in relation to Asiatic countries with which India
has a special relation. When the world is full of tensions and
possible conflicts and people’s passions are excited, it is a little
difficult to look with equanimity at a country which tries
not to be entangled in this way and which does not allow
momentary passions to govern its actions. So, it happens
that other countries regard with a certain amount of dis-
approval a policy which they consider either unwise or weak
or a policy of inaction or of some kind of neutrality.

Speech while presenting the budget demand for the Ministry of External
Affairs in Parliament, New Delhi, March 17, 1950

OUR POLICY IS POSITIVE

221

I have often ventured to point out, in this House, that
the policy we were pursuing was not merely neutral or
passive or negative but that it was a policy which flowed
from our historical as well as our recent past, from our
national movement and from the various ideals that we have
proclaimed from time to time. If the House considers other
different but, nevertheless, comparable countries and situa-
tions, it will realize that since India has to guard her newly
won independence and solve many problems that have
accumulated in the past, it becomes inevitable that she
should follow a policy that will help as best as it can to main-
tain world peace and also avoid, as far as possible, entangle-
ments in world conflicts. Whether that is possible or not is
another question; how far our influence can make a difference
to world forces is still another question. I do not pretend to
say that India, as she is, can make a vital difference to world
affairs. So long as we have not solved most of our own
problems, our voice cannot carry the weight that it normally
will and should. Nevertheless, every little thing counts in a
crisis and we want our weight felt and our voice heard in
quarters which are for the avoidance of world conflict.

We wanted to follow not a merely neutral or negative
policy but a positive one, naturally helping those forces that
we consider right and naturally disapproving of the things
that we do not like, but fundamentally keeping away from
other countries and other alignments of powers which nor-
mally lead to major conflicts. That does not mean that, in
our economic life or in other spheres of life, we do not incline
this way or that; it does, however, mean, in the jargon of the
day, that we do not line up with this or that set of forces but
try to maintain a certain friendliness and spirit of co-opera-
tion with both the great and the small countries of the world.

The House knows what we are up against today. For
some years past we have talked about the atom bomb.
But the atom bomb is supposed to have become a back
number with the coming of the hydrogen bomb. I
suppose, few people except the high experts know what
the hydrogen bomb actually is. But, from what little
information we can gather, it seems to be something

222

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

which may well destroy the world or a great part of it if it is
used on a large scale.

Now we have come to the stage where some people
seriously think in terms of large-scale destruction as a solution
to all problems and conflicts. Logically, it seems an odd way
of solving a problem. It is the way of ridding an individual of
his disease by killing him or trying to cure a headache by
cutting off the head of the person concerned. Nevertheless,
it is significant and indicative of what the world is thinking
today, that people should even think of the use of such
weapons of utter destruction as the hydrogen bomb. So far
as we are concerned, we can only express pious opinions
about it, because we neither have nor are we likely to have
the hydrogen bomb.

I shall not say anything about our world policy in a large
sense except that nothing has happened in recent months to
make us change the essentials of the policy we have been
pursuing. Obviously, minor shifts or minor directions may be
given to that policy but in its major aspects, major essentials
or major directions I think the policy we have been pursuing
is a correct policy and, indeed, it is the only policy that a
country like India can pursue.

May I just refer to a period of history when a very great
nation of the modern world, the United States of America,
attained her freedom? It seems a long time ago and we
perhaps imagine that the conflicts of today are more vital
and more serious than the conflicts of a hundred and fifty
years ago. In some ways that may be true. About a hundred
and fifty years ago, the Western world was breaking up on
account of all kinds of imperial and revolutionary wars.
Having achieved independence by breaking off from the
British Empire, the United States was naturally affected
by these upheavals; nevertheless, it avoided being involved
in the chaotic situation of Europe — although it doubtless
had its particular sympathies — because that was the natural
thing for a nation in that state of affairs to do. Now, this
analogy, although it may not be a particularly good one in
the circumstances of today, has a bearing and I wish to point
out to this House that for a country that has newly attained

OUR POLICY IS POSITIVE

229

freedom and independence, this is the natural policy to
pursue.

I referred to the United States of America, because, as the
House knows, a few months ago I visited that great country.
1 had thus the honour and privilege of meeting not only the
.great ones and being accorded a most cordial and friendly
welcome but also of receiving that welcome from the so-
called common people of that land. It showed what an
abundance of friendship and goodwill they had for our
country. I value that very much and I was greatly impressed
by it as also by the great achievements of the United States
of America, from which we can learn so much. Naturally,
I do not wish my country merely to copy another, because in
whatever direction we may grow we must grow out of the
roots from which our nation draws sustenance and follow the
genius of our people. Nevertheless, I feel that we can learn
a great deal from the U.S.A. as well as from other countries
of the West and we should take every opportunity of doing
so. If India is to grow and prosper, she cannot do so by
sticking only to her roots and isolating herself from the rest
of the world. Therefore, we must strike a balance between
the two extremes and then only can we make good.

Whatever the field of activity — and this applies specially
to the field of foreign policy — India must function accord-
ing to the ways and methods of her own thinking, if she is to
have any weight. India today is, fortunately, not small in
extent, importance, potential resources or in her back-
ground of thought and action. When she fails or succeeds,
she does so because of her own weakness or strength and not
because of external factors.

The biggest fact of the modern world is the resurgence of
Asia. It is a tremendous event: there is a great deal of good in
it as well as a great deal we do not like, as always happens
when major transformations take place. It affects us because
we are in Asia; even more so because we are in a strategic
part of Asia, set in the centre of the Indian Ocean, with
intimate past and present connections with Western Asia,
South-East Asia and Far Eastern Asia. Even if we could,
we would not want to ignore this fact. Now that the greater

224

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

part of Asia is free from the colonialism of the past, our
minds inevitably go back to the old days and old relationships
with other countries in Western, Eastern and South-Eastern
Asia. Our mind tries to skip this colonial period, to some
extent, as we pick up the old threads again — the old threads
that have to be picked up in a new way because new condi-
tions have arisen.

The House knows how much active and friendly interest
we took in the Indonesian Republic, which is now the United
States of Indonesia. The House will also remember that we
had the honour and privilege, a short while ago, of wel-
coming here the President of the United States of Indonesia,
Dr Soekarno. He came here, not only as the head of that great
new independent State but as a gallant fighter for freedom
and a fighter who had achieved his objective in spite of very
great difficulties. It was a pleasure to meet him here, to confer
with him and to find how much in common we had in our
national and individual outlooks. So, we become more and
more intimately connected, not by formal treaties and
alliances and pacts but by bonds which are much more
secure, much more binding — the bonds of mutual under-
standing and interest and, if I may say so, even of mutual
affection.

Then there is Burma which has seen a great deal of
internal trouble during the last two or three years and has
faced enormous difficulties. Naturally, our Government and
our people are interested in the present and future of Burma.
It is not our purpose — and it is not right for us — to interfere
in any way with other countries but, wherever possible, we
give such help as we can to our friends. We have ventured to
do so in regard to Burma, too, without any element of
interference.

Geographically, Nepal is almost a part of India, although
she is an independent country. Recently, the Prime Minister
of Nepal visited India. We welcomed and conferred with
this distinguished personage and it was clear that, in so far
as certain developments in Asia were concerned, the interests
of Nepal and India were identical. For instance, to mention
one point, it is not possible for the Indian Government to

OUR POLICY IS POSITIVE

225

tolerate an invasion of Nepal from anywhere, even though
there is no military alliance between the two countries. Any
possible invasion of Nepal, of which, incidentally, I have not
the slightest apprehension, would inevitably involve the safety
of India. I merely wish to point out to the House and to
others what our policy in such matters is bound to be.

Ffeedom interests us in the abstract as well as in the guise
of a practical and, in the context of Asia, a necessary step.
If it does not come, forces that will ultimately disrupt freedom
itself will be created and encouraged. We have accordingly
advised the Government of Nepal, in all earnestness, to bring
themselves into line with democratic forces that are siirring
in the world today. Not to do so is not only wrong but also
unwise from the point of view of what is happening in the
world today.

Among our other neighbours, there is Afghanistan, for
example, with whom we recently concluded a treaty of
friendship. The history of our relationship shows conflicts as
well as long periods of friendship and cultural contacts. It has
been a great satisfaction to us that these old contacts have
not only been renewed between independent India and
Afghanistan but have actually progressed. And we are, there-
fore, on the friendliest terms with the latter. May I say in
this connection that, because of the great tension between
Pakistan and Afghanistan over various matters, we are
continually being charged with having secret intrigues with
Afghanistan and bringing pressure upon her to adopt a policy
in regard to Pakistan which she might not otherwise have
done? That, of course, I regret to say, is one of the numer-
ous things without foundation which emanate from Pakistan.
We are certainly friendly to Afghanistan. We are also
interested in the future of many of the Frontier areas and the
peoples who inhabit them. We are interested, whatever the
political and international aspect may be, because we had
close bonds with them in the past and no political change can
put an end to our memories and to our old links.

I have always hesitated to refer to some of the things that
were happening in the Frontier Province because it was not
our policy to criticize the internal affairs of Pakistan. But

226 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

sometimes I have been compelled by circumstances to make a
brief reference to the fate of our colleagues and friends who
played a more important part than most of us in the struggle
for freedom. It would be false and, indeed, inhuman of us to
forget these friends who stood side by side with us for a whole
generation in the fight for India’s freedom. We are, therefore,
intimately interested but it is a matter for abiding regret to
us that we can only be interested from a distance without
being able to help in any way.

Among the other countries of Asia, I should briefly like to
mention Indo-China which has come to the fore recently
because of her internal conflicts. The policy we have pursued
in regard to Indo-China has been one of absolute non-
interference. Our interference could at best be a theoretical
one. I don't think that either a theoretical or any other kind of
interference in the affairs of a country struggling for freedom
can do any good, because the countries which have been
under colonial domination invariably resent foreign
interference. Their nationalism cannot tolerate it; and even
if interference comes with the best possible motives, it is often
regarded as a kind of weapon in the hands of those who are
opposed to nationalism. Besides, interference exposes them
to the possible slur that their nationalism is not a free, inde-
pendent nationalism but that it is controlled by others. That
is why we have sought deliberately not to interfere with
Indo-China and we intend to continue this policy.

Then I come to that great country — China. Very great
revolutionary changes have taken place in that country.
Some people may approve of them and others may not. It is
not a question of approving or disapproving; it is a question
of recognizing a major event in history, of appreciating it
and dealing with it. When it was quite clear, about three
months ago, that the new Chinese Government, now in
possession of practically the entire mainland of China, was a
stable Government and that there was no force which was
likely to supplant it, we offered recognition to this new
Government and suggested that we might exchange
diplomatic missions. Since then, events have moved rather
slowly. It may partly be due to the fact that certain important

OUR POLICY IS POSITIVE

227

members of that Government were away from their own
country. In any event, the present position is that there is
general agreement about such an exchange and a representa-
tive of ours, who used to be Secretary at our Embassy in
Nanking, has proceeded to Peking to discuss certain matters
of detail with the Peking Government. I hope that, before
long, Ambassadors will be exchanged between the two
countries.

As far as the rest of Asia is concerned, our relations are
friendly and satisfactory with Iran as well as with other
countries of the Middle East as it is called. Egypt, though
not actually a part of it, is, nevertheless, associated with Asia
and our relations are friendly with her also.

To turn to another part of the world, we have recently
had many new diplomatic missions from South America
established in this country. Although South America is very
far away and we have little knowledge of it in India, I think,
there is a great deal in common between India and South
America. I have little doubt that in the future the nations
of South America will play an important and ever-growing
part in world affairs and I, therefore, welcome these contacts
with them.

Then there is the great Continent of Africa which is still
more or less a colonial continent. The House knows that we
have recently sent a Minister to Ethiopia, one of the in-
dependent parts of Africa. Also, we have played some part
in the United Nations in determining the future of North
Africa and we hope that, in the course of a few years,
independent nations will be built up there, too. When one
talks about the African problem, one thinks mainly of the
great mass of people, the Negroes, who live in the great
continent. Mighty forces are moving in Africa and great
changes are likely to take place therein the course of this
generation. If these changes take place peacefully and by
co-operation, well and good; if not, I fear that tremendous
conflagrations will take place there. Any conflict between
nations is bad enough; but when that conflict takes a racial
character, it is infinitely worse. Naturally, we in India have
sympathy with the Africans and have repeatedly, not only as

228 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1955

a government but before we became a government, assured
them that we do not want any Indian vested interest to grow
in Africa at the expense of the African people. I am glad to
say that a realization of this fact is helping to bring about
friendly relations between Indians and Africans, in East
Africa especially and in some other parts also. Recently,
a conference, at which a distinguished member of this House
represented us, was held in South Africa. The object was to
discuss the problems of those South African nationals who are
of Indian descent. Although this was only preparatory to a
full round table conference, it succeeded as far as it went.
The problem is, of course, a difficult one; nevertheless, we
have gone one step forward in grappling with it.

Coming nearer home, there is Ceylon, another
independent country which has had the most intimate
contacts with India for ages past and which is, in many
ways, culturally very closely associated with us. I had an
occasion to visit Ceylon some months ago and it was a great
pleasure to me when I found that the friendliness of the
Ceylonese people to us remained the same, even though we
argue a great deal on the governmental level and cannot
sometimes find agreement. I am sorry that the problem of
Indians in Ceylon is still not wholly solved. I hope that some
way out will be found, because in regard to Ceylon and India
I refuse to think in terms of any kind of conflict.

May I now come to our relations with Pakistan, which
have, ever since we became independent, completely over-
shadowed not only much of out domestic life but to some
extent our foreign policy also? We agreed to the constitution
of Pakistan by the partition of India because of a variety of
things that had happened previously. We accepted it as a
fact and we hoped that it would at least solve some of the
problems that had troubled us. We did not accept it at any
time on the basis of a two-nation theory but on the basis of
some kind of territorial self-determination. Clearly, it was
impossible to divide India on the basis of separate religious
groups on one side or the other, because they were bound to
overlap. It was also clearly understood that those com-
munities which would become the minority communities on

OUR POLICY IS POSITIVE

229

either side must have the fullest protection and fullest
security for their lives; otherwise the whole structure which
we had built up would collapse.

Unfortunately, upheavals took place in North India and
Pakistan immediately after the partition — and they were up-
heavals of such an inhuman nature and magnitude that none
of us; in his wildest moment, could have imagined they
were possible. I am not going into that. I shall only say
that certain large scale migrations resulted. This imposed
tremendous hardships on millions of people who had been
uprooted and for whom it is so difficult to find roots again.
All that happened; it came like a flood and we were over-
whelmed by it. It is all very well for people to tell us, “Why
didn’t you think about this and prepare for it?” I do not
know how any human being could have thought of it and
prepared for it. Anyhow, it occurred, we made a great effort
to stop it, to try to draw a line beyond which it should not
go and to find some kind of an equilibrium again.

In those first days and months which were so full of
tragedy, we had the great advantage of the presence of
Mahatma Gandhi here and I do not know what would have
happened without him. But he left us, almost — I might
perhaps say — as a consequence of those happenings and the
passions that they had unleashed. We had thus far dealt, you
will remember, with West Punjab and the Frontier Province
on the one side and East Punjab, a bit of Delhi and certain
other areas on the other. In the Provinces of Sind, East Bengal
and West Bengal, nothing had happened to begin with and
we hoped that nothing much would happen.

But gradually we found that, in the Province of Sind,
conditions were such as to make it difficult for the minority
community to continue to live there. There was a ceaseless
stream from Sind pouring into Northern India till at last Sind
became almost bereft of any minority community except for
certain scheduled classes, who remained there perforce,
because they could not easily come away. This made us
unhappy not only because of the fact that many people were
upset and uprooted but rather because we began to see that
the forces we had fought in the past and tried to neutralize

W — 11 DPD/6J

230

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

and overcome by all kinds of things, including the partition,
were still at play. It suddenly dawned upon us that we had
paid a very heavy price but what we had hoped to gain we
had not gained: peace and equilibrium.

Meanwhile, the stream also continued from East Bengal,
although there were no major incidents either in East or
West Bengal. Sometimes it came almost in a flood and
sometimes it reduced itself to a trickle. In the course of the
last two years or so, about 16 lakhs of people, that is, a
million and six hundred thousand, came over from East
Bengal. Some people also went from West Bengal to East
Bengal during that period. I have no figures but I think their
number was considerably less. May I tell the House that,
during the last year and a half or two years, a possibility that
has always frightened us has been the development of an
evil situation in East Bengal and West Bengal. It has frighten-
ed us because of the number and the great suffering involved.
We discouraged in every possible way the migration of large
numbers from one Bengal to the other. At one period, when
it went down almost to a trickle, it seemed to us that we had
probably stopped that migration. Unfortunately, in spite of
our discouragement, people came over in hundreds of
thousands. Then the events in the last two months or so have
brought this problem, which had been a kind of bogey,
right to the forefront. We have to face it and face it today.

I shall now go back to some other problems affecting
Pakistan and ourselves. There is the Kashmir problem. You
must have seen that a certain resolution on Kashmir was
passed by the Security Council a few days ago and that we
have accepted the basic part of it. Nevertheless, our represen-
tative, Sri B. N. Rau, had made it perfectly clear to the
Security Council that certain implications of the Mac-
Naughton formula were not acceptable to us. These implica-
tions have to do with the so-called Azad Kashmir forces and
the northern areas. We have made it perfectly clear at every
stage that we could not accept any other position than the
one we have put forward. We have emphasized, in our reply
to the Security Council, the basic moral and legal factors
which we think govern the situation and to which— especially

OUR POLICY IS POSITIVE

2S1

to the moral factor — we attach great importance.

Quite apart from all this, ultimately the future of
Kashmir must necessarily depend upon the wishes of the
people of Kashmir. Our inducement to participate in the
affairs of Kashmir did not come only from the invitation of
the Maharaja’s Government which was, of course, a forma]
and legal invitation by the constituted authority of the day.
What impressed us much more and, indeed, what actually
induced us to participate, was the invitation from represen-
tatives of the people there and we have remained there all
this time only because of that.

There are other important matters between Pakist m and
us, for instance, the question of canal waters, of evacuee
property and of devaluation with which my honourable
colleague, the Finance Minister, is so much concerned.
These are questions which, when they arise between two
Governments, should essentially be considered on expert
level. As far as canal waters are concerned, we have
repeatedly suggested a Technical Commission which would
enable engineers on both sides to determine how best to use
the waters that are there and how best to add to their utility.
If ultimately there is some shortage of water — which our
engineers think there will not be — then there are other
sources that can be tapped. The way of approach is that
neither country should starve the other but that both should
make the best use of the available water. It is eminently a
question which can be decided without passion to the advan-
tage of both countries and the first thing about it is a technical
examination by both.

If there are any matters which cannot be decided after a
technical examination, we are perfectly prepared for an
adjudication or a judicial decision. The Pakistan Government
has been saying continually that we must agree here and now
that this matter be referred to the International Court of
Justice at the Hague. I have no objection to referring the
subject to the Hague Court or to any court for that matter.
But I do not personally think that the Hague Court is a
suitable tribunal for this, because it will involve us in an
enormous and lengthy process of litigation far away from us.

252 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1955

Anyway, whatever the means of arbitration, we need some-
thing that can produce results fairly rapidly and must not
prolong the agony.

Evacuee property, too, is a matter for judicial and expert
consideration. If necessary, I am also prepared to submit
this problem to impartial arbitration or impartial judicial
authority as the case may be. Here, too, we must devise means
that will make a quick decision possible.

Before I go back to the new situation that has arisen in
Bengal, may I remind the House that some time ago I made
an offer to the Pakistan Government that we should both
subscribe to a ‘no war’ declaration on behalf of our Govern-
ments? The draft that we proposed was published in the
press and the House is no doubt aware of it. It was a very
simple draft. The answer of the Pakistan Government was
rather complicated; they said that before we did this, we
must devise means for settling every other problem that we
had, whether it was Kashmir or devaluation. I pointed out
to them that it would be a very good thing if we could solve
all our problems and that, if we were to solve them, the first
step should be taken. What I wanted was to create an
atmosphere which would help in the solution of those
problems. So we went on arguing and the latest thing is a
reply from the Prime Minister of Pakistan making various
proposals about how the other problems should be tackled
and what procedure should be laid down. Now, while this
was happening, this eruption took place in East and West
Bengal and I felt that there was a certain element of unreality
in my talking about vague declarations, when we could not
control the existing situation.

There were a great many difficulties in the way of people
coming away from East Bengal to West Bengal but most of
those difficulties have been removed; certificates of domicile
and income-tax clearance were required; they are not
necessary now. Also, the people had to pass through four
barriers, losing some of their belongings at each. The
Customs barrier was a legitimate one; again a police barrier;
then the Ansar barrier and finally a barrier of common folk
who called themselves ‘Janagan,’ which means people

OUR POLICY IS POSITIVE

2H

gathered together! I visited a big camp at Ranaghat where
people are arriving daily. I found that many of them have
been able to bring a fair quantity of luggage with them,
pots, pans, utensils, beddings and in some cases trunks.
Obviously, there had been a relaxation in the matter of people
bringing goods. What they were deprived of was, I th ink ,
mostly hard cash, which was taken away or which they gave
as some kind of bribe to the various people who stopped
them, so that they might bring their other goods with them.
In all, since February 13, I should imagine, about 150,000
Hindus have come from East Bengal to Calcutta. About
100,000 Muslims have left Calcutta for East Bengal ;.tid this
process is continuing daily. Their traffic is, therefore,
not exactly one-way. It is a two-sided affair and entirely
voluntary in the sense that people are not pushed out; they
leave under the stress of circumstances.

As the House knows, there have recently been, in certain
towns of U.P. and in Bombay, disturbances and incidents
which I greatly deplore. A major disturbance also took
place for two or three days in the Goalpara and Barpeta parts
of Assam where there was an upheaval largely of the tribal
folk, who swept down and committed a good deal of arson,
driving away a fairly large number of Muslim inhabitants
of those areas into either Pakistan or the nearby State of
Cooch-Bihar. As far as I know, there was very little killing.
I cannot say how many were driven away, because figures
vary from 30,000 to double that number or more.

These problems obviously raise very important questions
for us. Some people talk excitedly about war, some people
talk vaguely about the exchange of population and we have
to consider every possible aspect of the problem. New, an
exchange of population is something which we have opposed
all along. It is something which I consider not only undesir-
able but also not feasible. It is a question of arithmetic, apart
from anything else. If we wanted an exchange of population
between East and West Bengal and if we did it with the
complete co-operation of both the Governments on expert
level and with every facility given, it is calculated that it
would take five and a half years and that, if no untoward

254

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1955

event happened. Of course, many untoward events will
happen in the meantime and, of course, there will be no
such magnificent co-operation between the two Governments
either! All kinds of upheavals will take place during that
period, so that one cannot think of this solution in terms of
reality.

Then again, where do we draw the line? The present
position is that, so far as the Hindu population of East
Bengal is concerned, one might say, generally speaking, that
the entire population is full of fear and apprehension about
the future and, given the opportunity, would like to come
away from East Bengal. That is only their present feeling. I
do not know, if they will actually come, when an opportunity
is given. Perhaps, later some people will stick to their lands
and other things. That will depend on the developing situa-
tion and on whether they have security or not. Quite apart
from the larger considerations of the problem, our opinion
is that people, especially those who are in danger, should for
the present be allowed to come away anyhow and that the
door should be kept open for them to travel from one part of
Bengal to the other. The relieving of the tension will itself
result in lessening panic and giving a little more sense of
security to these people. The limitation is really that of trans-
port, that more of it is not available. Anything between

5.000 and 8,000 people come over daily. Sometimes, there
are 10,000 people a day. About 6,000 Muslims have been
leaving Calcutta daily. On a particular day, there were

14.000 Hindus coming in and 10,000 Muslims going out.
The number varies. They come chiefly by train; some come
by steamer and about 500 people a day travel either way by
air, too.

In this connection, it was suggested that a joint statement
be made by Mr Liaquat Ali Khan and myself to meet the
immediate situation of panic and danger, to prevent incidents
from happening and to allow those who so desired to come
away. We do not wish to encourage mass migration, partly
because it would mean that people would suffer all kinds of
hardships without being able to come away for a period at
least. We also thought it important that full facilities be

OUR POLICY IS POSITIVE

2SS

given to the people to migrate under adequate protection.
It is thus proposed that a kind of joint statement be made for
that limited purpose, which, to begin with, would lay down
that each Government be fully responsible for the security
and protection of its minorities; secondly, that the guilty be
punished; thirdly, that those who have suffered be helped,
rehabilitated and compensated; fourthly, that an intensified
search be made for looted property and that those persons
found in possession of it and who have not voluntarily
returned it be considered guilty of having looted it and
punished accordingly. Also, that forced conversions be not
recognized and that every attempt be made to recover women
who have been abducted. Finally, there will also be a
reference to the punishing of people who spread wild
rumours and false stories which add to the tension. This
applies to newspapers also. There is also a suggestion that
there should be, on both sides, a Committee of Enquiry to
go into all these things and that it should be presided over
by a High Court Judge and include a representative of the
minorities.

Obviously, this statement, if it were to be made, would
have no great bearing on the major problem. The major
problem would still remain.

An hon. Member referred to the Dawn and other news-
papers. Well, it is not for me to speak of this but what Pakistan
newspapers contain is something amazing; the way they
publish libellous things is astonishing. However, may I in
this connection add that, on the last occasion when I referred
to this matter in the House, I congratulated the Indian press
on its restraint? Unfortunately, I am not able to do so
today, because it has not shown restraint during the last
week or two. I make this reference in all solemnity and
seriousness, because I have been watching the press and I
have seen what passions have been aroused through it. It is
understandable. I am prepared to admit that there has been
provocation. I am not comparing the Pakistan press with
the Indian press but the fact is that the press has carried
headlines and banner headlines which have excited the
people. I am not saying that the facts should not be published

286 JAWAHARI.AL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1958

but it is a question of how they are published. I may refer to
one of the best newspapers in India, The Hindu. The same
facts have been published in it and in some other papers but
it is all a question of how it is done. May I also suggest to
you that it is a fantastic proposition for a newspaper to go
about having a Gallup poll on war? It is an incitement.
We may have war or we may not have war but if newspapers
take the formulation of high policy in their hands in this way,
then we might be led into all manners of adventures.

Now, let me return to a very real problem. I was telling
you that we were discussing the no-war declaration with
Pakistan when all these things occurred and it seemed to me
fantastic to talk about such a declaration when something
that seemed worse than war was happening. It became
rather farcical. We have, therefore to consider it in all its
aspects. I shall put it to you quite frankly. Whatever policy
we have to pursue in the future must necessarily depend
largely on what happens in Pakistan and partly on what
happens in India. Essentially, it cannot be formulated in
theory, apart from the events that are happening. If there is
a grave danger to the minorities in Pakistan, it is quite
impossible for us to look on and remain calm. One does not
know what might happen at any time. There have been no
incidents but there is potential danger and one has to take
all possible steps to prevent any untoward happening.
Ultimately, protection in Pakistan can obviously be given by
Pakistan alone. A country can give protection to its nationals
only within its territory. It is quite clear that no position can
be tolerated in the future where minorities do not have
adequate protection and security. While we make this posi-
tion clear to Pakistan, we have to make this clear to our-
selves too. For, in a sense, the great responsibility has fallen
on us.

As far as Pakistan is concerned, she agreed to a cultural
and human approach as the basis of Partition but such an
approach does not follow from the policy of a State which is
Islamic in conception. Protection might follow but not equal
treatment. In so far as we are concerned, our old practice,
our background — in fact, our very theory of State — compels

A PROBLEM FOR THE UNITED NATIONS

237

us to follow a humanitarian policy. We shall be putting an
end to everything we have stood for in the past if we slide in
the slightest degree from that position. I myself am not
prepared to move an iota from the position we have held in
the past; therefore, the burden on us is all the greater.

A PROBLEM FOR THE UNITED NATIONS

r p he proposal to limit the United Nations by the exclusion

of some nations has surprised me greatly. Indeed, t seems
to forget the very purpose and the very name of th? United
Nations. It is true that the high hopes with which the United
Nations Organization was started have not been fulfilled.
At the same time, there can be no doubt that the mere fact
of its existence has saved us from many dangers and conflicts.
Also, there is no doubt that in the world ot today, it is the
only hope of finding a way for peaceful co-operation among
nations. If the United Nations ceases to be or if it radically
changes its position and nature, then there is nothing left
which would inspire hope for the future. We shall have to
go through terrible experiences and face disasters again
before we return to something which offers a lorum for all
nations, even though they differ from one another. The whole
conception of One World, however distant that One World
may be, involves an organization like the United Nations.
To imagine that strict conformity to a single doctrine or
approach can solve the problems of the world is to forget
the lessons of history and to ignore the realities of today.
However difficult the path, it has to be pursued by repeated
attempts at co-operation on the part of all nations. Once that
attempt is given up, the consequence can only be a prepara-
tion for conflict on a world-wide scale and, ultimately, the
conflict itself.

Some people think that, in the circumstances of today, it
is quite inevitable that the world should be divided up into

Message broadcast by the United Nations Radio network from Lake Success,
New York, May 5, 1950

238 JAWAHARLAI, NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

two hostile camps and that every country should line up on
this side or that. Hostility, no doubt, exists but there are
many countries who refuse to line up in this way. These
countries believe that neither the pressure of world events
nor their own destiny requires this lining up on either side
and they, therefore, maintain their separate identity and
view-point and thus serve the causes they have at heart.

If any attempt is made to change the essential nature of
the United Nations, it will not lead to another or a more
powerful organization which can work for peace. It would
only mean the break-up of something that is actually and
potentially valuable with nothing to take its place. I think,
therefore, that the proposal to exclude any independent
country from the United Nations is unwise and harmful.

FERMENT IN ASIA

M r Chairman, Your Excellencies and delegates, the
Governor and the Chief Minister of the State of Uttar
Pradesh have welcomed you to the city of Lucknow. May I
on behalf of the Government of India, also offer you a cordial
welcome and tell you how privileged we consider ourselves
that you should have chosen this city and this country for this
great gathering? For about twelve or more years now, I have
been connected, first rather distantly and then more inti-
mately, with the work of the Institute of Pacific Relations. I
have profited by reading your publications and have always
felt that you were doing good work in trying to understand
the problems of the Pacific or the Far East. For a long time
I have felt that, as time goes on, the problems of the Far East
will become more complicated and the centre of gravity of
the tension, prevalent in the world today, will shift to the
Far East and in particular to Asia. While people readily
agree that Asia has, to a certain extent, become the focal

Speech at the eleventh session of the Institute of Pacific Relations, Lucknow,
October 3, 1950

FERMENT IN ASIA

2S9

point of world tension, they relegate Asian problems to
positions of relative insignificance and tend exclusively to
emphasize the importance of European and other world
problems. I agree that European problems are and have been
very important but I have felt that, in the perspective of
things to come, they were wrong in not devoting the requisite
attention to the problems of developing Asia. Asia compels
attention in many ways. There are a large number of back-
ward countries in need of urgent economic development
and others in which acute scarcity of vital commodities
prevails. But what is most needed is an understanding that
Asia is going through a process of change and that i* is in
ferment. Some parts of Asia are quite and relatively peaceful
whereas others are torn by external troubles and disturbances.

I am not referring to the external situation so much as to
characteristics inherent in the personality of Asia. I do not
claim that this change is peculiar to Asia; perhaps, it is taking
place all over the world. In Asia we have been kept down and
are now trying to catch up with others who are ahead of us.
We have been engrossed in things of the past and time has
passed us by. We have not been able to keep pace with it and
so we must run now. We cannot afford to walk but then when
we run we also stumble and fall and try to get up again. We
realize that speed, especially in an age-old continent like
Asia, involves risks and dangers but we have no choice in
the matter. If you seek to understand us, you can do so to a
limited extent, if you discuss only our political, social and
economic problems. You will have to look a little deeper and
try to understand the torment in the spirit of Asia. This
crisis of the spirit takes different forms in different countries.
Ultimately, it is we who have to gain an insight into our
problems with outside help if possible. Nobody can bear our
burdens for us; we have to bear them ourselves. I hope that
in your discussions you will give thought not only to our
external problems but also to this crisis I have spoken of,
which moves the minds of vast masses of people. If you
asked me about my own country, it would be very difficult
for me to answer briefly because I see so many forces at play. I
am often asked: How has communism affected your country?

240 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

How do you deal with it? These are trivial questions and
have perhaps a momentary importance. If you seek to under-
stand a country by putting such trivial questions, then you are
bound to get lost in its superficial aspects. One has to think
of the problems which are fundamental to the life of a
country, before one can presume to understand its people.

Asia is a huge continent and the peoples of Asia are all
different from one another, as they were reared in different
cultures and traditions. In spite of all this, I think it is still
true to say that there is such a thing as Asian sentiment.

Perhaps, this sentiment is merely the outcome of the past
two or three hundred years of European influence in Asia.
Personally, I do not believe that any profound difference
exists between the Orient and the Occident. Such differences
as can be accounted for by history, tradition and geography
exist even among the Asian countries and, in fact, even
within the same country. Probably, the present-day
differences mainly arose from the fact that certain parts of
the world developed their resources and became prosperous
while others were completely unaffected by the industrial
revolution.

I think that thinking in terms of the Orient and the
Occident sets us on the wrong track. As a rule, the same
type of problems lead to the same results everywhere. At the
same time, there are certain countries like India and China
with pronounced national characteristics where history and
tradition exert a profound influence on the course of events.
I am sure there is a great deal of good in this tradition. We
should have gone under but for that. We have survived on
account of the good in our tradition and we propose to hold
on to it. At the same time, I have no doubt at all that it has a
great deal that is bad, too. It prevents us from doing the things
we ought to do and so, between the good and the bad and
between the past and the present, we do not quite know what
we are going to do and what we should do.

If you ask me about India it would take me a long time
to tell you about all the aspects of our problems. Our diffi-
culties are not only external but also of the mind and spirit.
There are certain tendencies that carry us forward and

FERMENT IN ASIA

241

others that retard our forward movement — I will not call it
progress — and compel us to look behind.

Progress consists in having the essential things of life and
in that sense we obviously must have progress. We are going
ahead and I hope rapidly. We are harnessing science for the
service of the natioh. Yet a doubt arises in my mind as to
whether material progress really constitutes a remedy for
our problems. It is, at best, only a partial solution; some-
thing more is needed. We need a solution of the broad
problems that afflict the world today. Many of these are
probably evils that have resulted from an indiscriminate
application of science which we have now begun to w orship.
What are we aiming at and where are we heading for?
I feel that unless we answer these questions, we are apt to go
astray. You know that many of us in this country have spent
a great part of our lives in trying, though imperfectly, to
follow the lead of our great leader. We were poor stuff.
Again and again, he gave us the strength and the vision to
achieve our goal. For thirty years or more, we took shelter
under his shadow and under his guidance. He preached non-
violence and strangely enough, we followed him, to some
extent, though we did not quite understand him. We felt
the greatness of his presence and his personality and we
followed him in certain things to the best of our ability. He
preached non-violence and yet we see round us a world full
of violence. Our own Government maintains an army, a
navy and an air force and we are often constrained to have
recourse to violence. The efficacy of non-violence is not
entirely convincing. What are we to do about it all? None
of us would dare, in the present state of the world, to do
away with the instruments of organised violence. We keep
armies both to defend ourselves against aggression from
without and to meet trouble within. While I grant that we
must keep armies, it is also true that the armed forces have
not solved the problems for which violence is offered as a
solution.

Our Army, Navy and Air Force are not worth mention-
ing compared with the armadas of other nations. But have
these countries solved their problems with the help of their

242

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

armed forces? I am of the opinion that they have not. We
find that somehow the methods we adopt to deal with evil
only result in more evil. What then are we to do? We have
to meet the evil with armed force; yet in doing so we are
ourselves corrupted by that evil. Eventually, we develop
what may be called the military outlook.

While there have been great soldiers and great men in
the past, I do not think that the military outlook or the purely
military method has yet solved any major problem of the
world. That was why a great Frenchman once said that war
was much too serious a thing to be entrusted to soldiers. But
if it is too serious to be entrusted to the soldier, to entrust it
to a civilian with a military outlook is worse. If a nation or a
government develops a military outlook, then there is little
hope for that nation.

For the last three years or so we have been faced with a
minor war in Korea which has in it the seeds of a mighty
conflict. Almost every country wanted the war to be at least
localized and ultimately brought to an end. Yet, the military
mind wanted to go much further, believing that by going
further it would solve other basic problems also. It failed to
recognize the essential lesson of history, namely, that if you
go too far you might topple over and create a fresh crop of
problems.

It is my misfortune that I have to deal with these
problems in my capacity as a member of the Government. I
have to advise my Government and sometimes venture to
express an opinion to other Governments. Often enough I
find that we are, fortunately, not in agreement with them. I
sometimes presume to think that perhaps we in India or in
Asia may conceivably have a better understanding of the inner
problems of mind and spirit that trouble Asia and which
will ultimately determine her actions. Economics plays an
important and vital part in the lives of men but there are
other forces which play an even more important part and it
may be that we in Asia, whatever the country to which we
belong, are in a somewhat better position to understand our
neighbours in Asia than those nations who have an entirely
different cultural heritage. In a spirit of arrogance I once

FERMENT IN ASIA

243

ventured to say that many Western countries lacked subtlety
of thought in understanding the East or in dealing with it;
but how can one acquire that understanding?

Are problems of nationalism in Asia different from those
in Europe? If so, how are they different and what exactly
do we mean by nationalism? It is difficult to define the con-
cept of nationalism. In a country struggling against foreign
domination one knows exactly what nationalism means. It
is merely an anti-foreign feeling. But what is nationalism in a
free country? Under certain conditions it can be a construc-
tive force. Sometimes, we find that nationalism, a healthy
force in a country striving for its freedom, may becomt , after
the country has been liberated, unhealthy and even reac-
tionary. It may seek to promote its interests at the expense of
other countries and it may repeat the very errors against
which it had to contend. But where shall we draw the line
between what is good and what is bad in nationalism? We
have just won our freedom but the nationalist sentiments
that inspired our struggle still warm our hearts; they warm
the heart of every Asian because the memories of past colonia-
lism are still vivid in his mind. So, nationalism is still a live
force in every part of Asia. A movement must define itself
in terms of nationalism, if it has to become real to the people.
In any Asian country, a movement will succeed or fail in the
measure that it associates itself with the deep-seated urge
of nationalism. If you go against it, whatever the merits of
your remedy or your reform, they will not be appreciated.
I am often asked by people from abroad as to what my reac-
tion to communism is. The answer has of necessity to be
complicated but they become annoyed that we do not see
the great danger facing the world. We do see dangers, many
of them, both within and without. For instance, when
Indonesia was struggling for its freedom, it seemed monstrous
to us that any country should support the cause of imperia-
lism. Communism or no communism, we just could not
understand the attitude which some of the countries adopted.
Fortunately, in the end the right counsel prevailed and
Indonesian nationalism found support in many quarters.
No argument in any country in Asia is going to cany' weight

244 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

if it goes counter to national aspirations. After all, this is
only understandable.

I do not necessarily consider nationalism to be a
commendable ideology. It may or may not be healthy. I wish
to stress its importance only because in large parts of Asia
today it is a factor which must be recognized. It will, perhaps,
be good to remember that it is often based or intimately
associated in people’s minds with the memory of colonialism
in the past. Anything that revives this memory produces a
strong reaction.

I am aware that some of you here are experts on these
subjects. I have, however, presumed to say something on this
subject, because during my lifetime I have dabbled in many
subjects, though I am not an expert in any of them. I have
come in contact with vast masses of human beings here in
this country and elsewhere, have tried to understand them
and to influence them and in turn been influenced by them.
I have also tried to understand people with diverse views. I
could have, perhaps, understood them better if I had the
great advantage of being as scholarly as many of you are.

I have not the faintest idea what India will be like ten or
twenty years hence. Speaking as the Prime Minister of India,
I can tell you what I want it to be and I have some confidence
in my ability to direct people along the right road but I
cannot predict as to what the future of this country will be.
I can do no more than do my job to the best of my ability
and with as much energy as I possess.

I have no doubt that your discussions will conduce to a
better understanding among the nations of the world. You
should also, I feel, inquire into the attitudes that make it
difficult for people to approach problems dispassionately.
Speaking of India, I can say that by modern standards, we
are weak militarily, economically and in other ways, although
our potential resources are vast. At the present moment I
have not a shadow of fear for what may happen to the world.
I think that, to some extent, my people share this attitude.
I should like to tell you that we, under the guidance of a
great leader, faced a mighty empire unarmed and apparently
without any means of achieving our aims. We learnt from

FERMENT IN ASIA

245

our leader not to be afraid of an opponent. If we are not
overwhelmed by the fear that pervades large parts of the
world, it is not for any lack of realization of the dangers with
which we are all faced but because we have learnt how to
face them during the last thirty years. Now, when nations
have entered the realm of warfare and developed a military
mind, they are prepared to take extreme steps but while
fighting a war they lose sight of the objective. Perhaps, the
last war lasted much longer than it should have. At least some
people think that it might have ended earlier if the desire
to fight it to the end had not existed.

If you have the time and opportunity I would ad' ise you
to read an ancient Sanskrit play, written in the fifth century.
It is a political play and deals particularly with the nroblems
of peace and war. The great Indian who was the hero of the
play was a master not only of statecraft but also of war.
He waged war, established a powerful empire and came to
the conclusion that the real objective of war was not victory.
Fighting a war was only the means of gaining an objective.
If the objective itself is lost, then new problems arise at the
end of the war.

It must be admitted that in the world today wars have to
be fought. Sometimes they are big wars; at others, they are
not so big. But remember that they are bad and they must
be stopped because they corrupt us and, by ever creating
new problems, make our future even more uncertain. That,
surely, is the lesson the last two great wars have taught us.
Apparently, we have failed to learn it because people have
already started to talk of a third world war. It is time we
thought of that lesson. We must not rush into adventures
which might lead us into the catastrophe of a third world war.
Ultimately, of course, the question is one of our having
enough wisdom to prevent wars. We have rich stores of
knowledge and we have universities and all kinds of institu-
tions for imparting this knowledge to others but sometimes
one wonders whether wc are really growing in wisdom.

I am reminded of what a great Greek poet said long ago:
What else is Wisdom? What of man’s endeavour,

Or God’s high grace, so lovely and so great?

17—11 PFD/63

246

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

To stand from fear set free, to breathe and wait;
To hold a hand uplifted over Hate;

And shall not Loveliness be loved for ever?

PEACE OR WAR

I have always welcomed a debate on foreign affairs in this
House because they are no longer the concern merely of
experts and specialists. Foreign affairs concern almost every
human being now and an event in one part of the world
may have consequences which affect people in another.
Foreign affairs are the concern of this House, in particular,
because on it rests the great responsibility for both domestic
and international affairs.

I further welcome this opportunity of discussing the inter-
national situation because the world, as the House well knows,
is passing through a very grave crisis.

At this moment, it is especially desirable that the deepest
understanding should exist between the Government and the
country which this House represents, so that any policy we
undertake has the fullest possible co-operation and support. I
wish to say, however, that I am somewhat overwhelmed by a
sense of responsibility on this occasion. I am also hesitant
because it is difficult to talk of foreign" affairs without hurting
an individual or a people or a country. I am convinced that
if we start blaming one another at this moment, it will not
only fail to serve any useful purpose but will actually stand
in the way of our objectives.

As it is, there has been enough of recrimination and,
even if it was occasionally justified, it certainly did not help in
easing the situation. Not only have we to deal with Govern-
ments but also with mass psychology, with the inflamed
passions of millions of people. Blame and censure do not
help much when that is the position. Are we trying to find a

Speech initiating debate on Foreign Affairs in Parliament, New Delhi,
December 6, 1950

PEACE OR WAR

247

peaceful way out of a terrible difficulty or only trying to
justify the action that we have already taken? This is a ques-
tion that sometimes bothers me. I think all of us, wherever we
might be, have to bear in some measure the responsibility
for the state the world is in today. Our most urgent need
today is charity of thought and the touch of healing. Un-
fortunately for all of us, the great healer under whose care
we grew up is no more; and that is not only our misfortune
but that of the whole world.

A single phrase can sum up what is, today, the foremost
issue in international afEairs — peace or war. The latter, if it
comes, will be an overwhelming and all-enveloping war, a
war which may well bring utter destruction to the world and
which will probably ruin the proud structure of modern
civilization. What we are discussing, therefore, is a matter of
the greatest import and consequence. My altitude is one of
earnestness and humility and I wish to say frankly that I have
no easy remedy. All we can do is to grope in the dim twilight
for something that will, perhaps, prevent the twilight
from becoming dark night. It is difficult to say, whether
or not we will succeed; but, in any event, it is our duty to
try our utmost to avert a third world war.

I am sure that people all over the world want peace and
are anxious to avoid war. I am equally sure that every govern-
ment wants to avoid war. And yet, we drift towards the very
thing we seek to avoid. Fear and suspicion have us in their
grip; every step that one party takes adds to the fear and
suspicion of another and so catastrophe comes inevitably
nearer as in a Greek tragedy. I do believe, however, that, if
the peoples or rather the governments of the world try hard
enough, this catastrophe can be avoided, although it becomes
increasingly difficult to do so.

When we discuss foreign affairs, many subjects concern-
ing life here in this country come up for discussion. One of
these — and it is of primary importance for us — is our relations
with Pakistan. I do not propose to say much or indeed any-
thing on that subject in this debate, partly because we have
discussed it many times and I have given you such infor-
mation as I have on several occasions. If and when any new

248

JAWAHARI.AI. NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

development takes place, I shall certainly take the House
into my confidence. It is obvious that our relations with
Pakistan, as those with any neighbouring country, are of
extreme importance.

Foreign possessions in India are another question which
has agitated and excited this House in the past. They are
small areas without much territorial or economic importance.
Nevertheless, they raise big questions on which we have
strong feelings. In regard to these foreign possessions, I think,
we have set an extraordinary example of restraint. For more
than three years, we have reasoned, we have argued and we
have used peaceful methods all without any result. We know,
of course, that ultimately there can be only one result. We
cannot, conceive and, indeed, can never tolerate the idea that
any foreign footholds should remain in India. I submit to the
House that our manner of proceeding in regard to the foreign
possessions is evidence not only of our peaceful intentions but
also of the enormous patience with which we approach such
problems.

The question of Indians in South Africa was recently
before the United Nations. It has once again raised issues that
are vital not only for us but for the whole world. If I may say
so. it is the issue of racialism that is of paramount importance.
We are intimately concerned with the people of Indian origin
who settled in South Africa and who have become South
African citizens. We have nothing to do with them politically
but we have cultural links. Since the issue of racialism involves
the self-respect of India and the Indian people, indeed of all
the peoples of Asia, it has assumed tremendous importance
for us. You will observe the patience we have shown in this
matter and keep in mind how we have argued patiently
year after year, tried to make people understand and taken
the question to the United Nations. You must also realize
that we have tried our best to fulfil the directions issued by
UNO in accordance with the resolutions passed by them.
Now, another resolution has recently been passed. What this
will lead to, I do not know but one thing is certain. Regard-
less of how long it takes us to settle the issue, we shall not
submit to racialism in any part of the world.

PEACE OR WAR

249

I shall now come to the main theme of my address, which
is the situation that has arisen in the Far East. The incursion
from North Korea into South Korea was brought to the
notice of the United Nations and was described by the
Security Council as an act of aggression. We supported that
decision and gave our vote accordingly. Subsequently, othei
developments took place. There was the 'Six-Power Resolu-
tion’ and the ‘Seven-Power Resolution’ but for a variety of
reasons, which I think I have placed before the House from
time to time, we could not support every step that was taken.
Confused and distressed at the situation which was growing
more and more difficult, I had the temerity to address an
appeal to Marshal Stalin on the one hand and to Mr Acheson
on the other. It was not an attempt at mediation, foi we have
never thought in those terms. I made the appeal in the vague
hope that, perhaps, it might result in something positive.
The former contained the suggestion that China might be
admitted to the United Nations and that the U.S.S.R. might
also return to the Security Council. The fact that we had
recognized the People’s Government of China naturally
implied that, so far as we were concerned, China should be
a part of the United Nations. In the context in which 1
suggested it to Marshal Stalin and Mr Acheson, however,
the emphasis was on its urgency rather than on the rights and
wrongs of the matter. We further believed that the situation
in the Far East could only be dealt with satisfactorily if the
principal parties concerned agreed to sit round a conference
table.

The United Nations is a great and powerful organization
and it has a Charter that lays down its ideals and objectives
in language so impressive that it can hardly be bettered.
The United Nations was founded for the great nations as
well as the small. We thought it was necessary that the
representatives of the great countries most concerned with
the crisis in Korea should be able to meet at the United
Nations. Without such a step there was every danger that the
position would worsen, as, indeed, it has done. It was with
this point of view that I made the appeal to Russia and to
the United States of America. It was unfortunate that it

250 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

did not have any fruitful results.

Subsequently, the aggression by North Korea was checked
and the North Korean armies pushed back till they seemed to
be completely broken. The forces of the United Nations
appeared to have won total victory, as, indeed, they had.
This victory, inevitably, gave rise # to certain fundamental
questions. Should the forces of the United Nations continue
to advance? If so, how far they should go? We consulted
our Ambassador in Peking and our representatives in other
countries about how the various Governments were viewing
the scene. We had, perhaps, a rather special responsibility
in regard to China, because we were one of the very few
countries represented there. Furthermore, we were the only
country, besides the countries of the Soviet group, which was
in a position to find out through its Ambassador what the
reactions of the Chinese Government to the developing
events were. Since we were anxious that the other countries,
with whom we were co-operating should know these views,
we sent them on to the Governments of the United Kingdom
and the United States.

The Chinese Government clearly indicated that if the
38th Parallel was crossed, they would consider it a grave
danger to their own security and that they would not tolerate
it. Whether their view was right or wrong is not the point.
However, it was decided that the forces of the United Nations
should advance beyond the 38th Parallel. They did so and
came into conflict with re-organized North Korean troops
and, at a later stage, with the Chinese forces. The Chinese
Government described the latter as volunteers but, accord-
ing to information received, they were regular Chinese troops.
The distinction is not very important; it has little bearing
because a large number of these volunteers or Chinese soldiers
—call them what you will — did come across the Manchurian
border into North Korea and threaten the UN troops to such
an extent that the latter are in grave danger at the moment
and are withdrawing.

It will not do us much good to think of what might have
been done or to dwell on the errors committed in the political
held or in other fields. The situation we have to face is chang-

PEACE OR WAR

291

ing so rapidly that it is very difficult to suggest any measures
for its improvement. I realize that the suggestions I had in
mind four, five or six days ago are out of date today. They
do not fit in with the circumstances and alternatives have to
be thought of. We did, as a matter of fact, convey our views
to the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United
States of America as well as to some Governments in Asia.
Some of these Governments have been good enough to tell
us what they have in mind and what they propose to do.
But, as I said, the situation is changing very rapidly, indeed.
A step we envisage today will probably become obsolete and
impracticable the next day.

We realize that it will be very harmful if this matter is
considered in the United Nations at a purely formal level and
if resolutions of condemnation arc passed. The H mse will
remember that one of the first things suggested by the Chinese
delegation was that a resolution of condemnation be passed
against the United Nations or the U.S.A. On the other hand,
resolutions condemning China and calling her an aggressor
have also been repeatedly suggested.

The point is that we are on the very verge of a world war
and obviously, it does not help in the slightest to call each
other names. If we want a war to come sooner rather than
later and if the present situation is merely a manoeuvre to
provide political justification for military action, then, of
course, no more need be said; but if we seek to avoid war,
then we must avoid the kind of approach that creates bitter-
ness. The only possible way is that of peaceful negotiation.
The negotiations may fail but there is no other way except
war. It was clear to us that no negotiation would have any
value unless China was associated with it. China, apart from
being a great Power, is most intimately concerned with the
events happening next door to her. We suggested that there
should be a cease-fire and, if possible, a demilitarized zone
where negotiations among the parties concerned, including
China, could take place — negotiations, not merely about
what should follow the cease-fire but about the entire Korean
problem as well. It had also seemed essential to us that, at
a later stage in the negotiations, the questions of Formosa

852

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1955

should also be considered. Without that, no peace could
last. One cannot carry on negotiations unless the fighting
stops. Therefore, a cease-fire appears desirable; whether it is
possible or not, is another matter.

We welcomed the decision of the Prime Minister of
England to go to the United States, to meet President
Truman and wished him God speed in his endeavours to
prevent war and to find a peaceful way out of this tangle.
We found that there was a good deal in common between
the British Prime Minister’s view of the present situation and
ours. We let him have our own viewpoint in detail in case
he needed it during the discussions with President Truman.
We also informed other Governments in Asia who were
friendly to us as to what we feel about the Korean situation.

During the last few months, a great deal has happened in
Korea. Everybody talks of the freedom, the unity and
independence of Korea. The forces that are fighting the
United Nations say more or less the same thing but the result
of this unanimity of approach, if I may say so, is this: Korea
is a dying and desolate country. Only this morning I have
had a letter from a Korean lady in Seoul who has lived
through the horror that has prevailed these many months.
In her letter, which I would like to read out to you, there is
a phrase: “my country is sick and dying of cold, disease and
starvation”.

It is extraordinary that we should seek to help our friends
in ways which kill or destroy them. It is, indeed, a strange
commentary on the way of violence which we are somehow
forced to adopt in the present world. This commentary will be
complete when the third world war comes and we all sink
into ruin and oblivion. It is about time we changed our
attitude to the problems of the world. I wish we did not over-
whelm ourselves with passion and anger at the critical time;
we should, instead, look to our own actions and learn ag ain
the ancient lesson that wrong doing cannot be counteracted
by further wrong doing; nor can violence be ultimately
conquered by violence. I know how easy it is to talk in terms
of pious platitudes but we must make every effort to benefit
from what is true in them.

PEACE OR WAR

253

There is another bitter truth we have to understand and
realize today. In the fighting in Korea, the main burden of the
United Nations has fallen on the forces of the United States.
They have suffered greatly and I think our sympathy should go
out to them. We have, as I have pointed out, adopted a definite
attitude to North Korea and, although we did not support all
the resolutions of the United Nations or the Security Council,
our attitude to the aggression has remained basically the same.
We did not support the Six-Power and the Seven-Power
Resolutions because we felt that they would not help in
solving the problem. On the contrary, we believed that they
would only increase the tension and further inflame the
passions of both the States. For the same reason, we did not
join the Seven-Power Commission set up in accordance with
one of these resolutions. Not that we wished to shirk our
responsibility or duty; but we felt we could only discharge
our duty and responsibility adequately if our approach oi
mood, if I may say so, was not merely one of condemnation.

I want you to realize that what happens in Korea is of
the utmost significance to the Chinese people also. One
cannot ignore that fact, unless one is prepared to ignore
completely China and the Chinese people — and the latter
are not a mere handful. We have always been of the opinion
that the problem of Korea can only be solved with China’s
co-operation. Whatever the result of the Korean conflict
might be in the military Sense, the problem cannot be finally
solved without the acquiescence, if not the active co-operation,
of China. We laid stress on this fact right at the beginning.
That was one of the reasons why we felt that China should
be represented at the United Nations; and the issue at stake
was an urgent one.

The military situation in Korea has again undergone a
considerable change and I just cannot make a profitable
suggestion as to what should be done now. I can only hope
that the negotiations between President Truman and Prime
Minister Attlee will bear fruit and lead to some peaceful way
out of this predicament. In any case, I cannot conceive of
a peaceful solution in the Far East, unless the great country
of China is taken into account.

254

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 19491955

I mentioned Formosa earlier. Formosa is not what might
be called an immediate issue but it is tied up with the other
problems of the Far East and has to be considered urgently
on that score. You will remember that some of the great
Powers made declarations concerning Formosa in Cairo
and Potsdam. President Truman made a very forthright
declaration earlier this year. I feel that we must proceed on
the basis of these declarations. What exactly our manner of
proceeding should be is a matter for careful consideration.

I would like to say one more thing. There has been a
good deal of talk about the atomic bomb. I need hardly say
much about it. I am sure no one in this House approves of
the idea of using the atomic bomb anywhere at any time and
much less so in the particular context of the war in the Far
East. In the morning newspapers today, there was a statement
by Mr Pearson, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of
Canada, in which he spoke of the atomic bomb. I cannot say
anything more forceful than what Mr Pearson has said in the
matter. He has pointed out the grave dangers of using it,
particularly in Asia. Apart from the horrors that are inherent
in it, it has become a symbol of evil. If the stress of circum-
stances compels the world to use it, it means that the latter has
yielded completely to evil. Therefore, 1 earnestly hope that
there will be no question now or hereafter of the use of the
atom bomb.

I should like to say a few words about two other
neighbouring countries — Tibet and Nepal. Some questions
were asked earlier this morning in regard to the advance of
the Chinese forces inLo Tibet. I could not give much informa-
tion then; nor can 1 do so now. The story of Tibet, so far as
we are concerned, is very simple. I am going into past history.
Ever since the People’s Government of China talked about
the liberation of Tibet, our Ambassador told them, on behalf
of the Government of India, how the latter felt about it.
We expressed our earnest hope that the matter would be
settled peacefully by China and Tibet. We also made it clear
that we had no territorial or political ambitions in regard to
Tibet and that our relations were cultural and commercial.
We said that we would naturally like to preserve these

PEACE OR WAR

255

relations and continue to trade with Tibet because it did
not come in the way of either China or Tibet. We further
said that we were anxious that Tibet should maintain the
autonomy it has had for at least the last forty years. We
did not challenge or deny the suzerainty of China over Tibet.
We pointed all this out in a friendly way to the Chinese
Government. In their replies, they always said that they
would very much like to settle the question peacefully but diat
they were, in any event, going to liberate Tibet. From whom
they were going to liberate Tibet is, however, not quite clear.
They gave us to understand that a peaceful solution would
be found, though I must say that they gave us no assurance
or guarantee to the effect. On the one hand, they said they
were prepared for a peaceful solution; on the othe*, they
talked persistently of liberation.

We had come to believe that the matter would be settled
by peaceful negotiation and were shocked when we heard
that the Chinese armies were marching into Tibet. Indeed,
one can hardly talk about war between China and Tibet.
Tibet is not in a position to carry on war and, obviously,
Tibet is no threat to China. It is said that other countries
might intrigue in Tibet. I cannot say much about it because
I do not know. It is certain, however, that there was no
immediate threat. Violence might, perhaps, be justified in
the modern world but one should not resort to it unless there
is no other way. There was another way iri Tibet as we pointed
out. That is why the action of China came to us as a surprise.

The House is aware of the correspondence that was
exchanged between the Chinese Government and our
Government. We have continued to press upon them that
it would be desirable for them to halt their advances and
settle matters with Tibetan representatives peacefully. There
is no doubt that during the last few weeks they have checked
their main advance. However, I cannot say for certain what
their future intentions are. Some small groups may have
continued to advance in some places but so far as we know
there has been no advance towards Lhasa, where conditions
are still normal. That, of course, does not mean that the
problem is solved.

256 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

Coming to Nepal, I must say that it has been the scene of
strange developments during the last fortnight. Ever since I
have been associated with this Government, 1 have taken
a great deal of interest in Nepal. We have desired, not only to
continue our old friendship with that country but to put it
on a still firmer footing. We have- inherited both good things
and bad from the British. Our relations with some of our
neighbouring countries developed during an expansive phase
of British imperial policy. Nepal was an independent country
when India was under British rule; but, strictly speaking,
her independence was only formal: The test of the
independence of a country is that it should be able to have
relations with other countries without endangering that
independence. Nepal’s foreign relations were strictly limited
to her relations with the Government functioning in India
at the time. That was an indication that Nepal’s approach
to international relations was a very limited one.

When we came into the picture, we assured Nepal that
we would not only respect her independence but see, as far
as we could, that she developed into a strong and progressive
country. We went further in this respect than the British
Government had done and Nepal began to develop other
foreign relations. We welcomed this and did not hinder the
process as the British had done. Frankly, we do not like
and shall not brook any foreign interference in Nepal. We
recognize Nepal as an independent country and wish her
well. But even a child knows that one cannot go to Nepal
without passing through India. Therefore, no other country
can have as intimate a relationship with Nepal as ours is.
We would like ever) other country to appreciate the intimate
geographical and cultural relationship that exists between
India and Nepal.

Three years ago, we assured Nepal of our desire that she
should be a strong, independent and progressive country.
In the nature of things, we stood not only for progressive
democracy in our own country but also in other countries.
We have said this not only to Nepal but it has consistently
been a part of our policy in distant quarters of the world.
We are certainly not going to forget this when one of our

PEACE OR WAR

257

neighbouring countries is concerned.

We pointed out in as friendly a way as possible that the
world was changing rapidly and if Nepal did not make an
effort to keep pace with it, circumstances were bound to
force her to do so. It was difficult for us to make this clear
because we did not wish to interfere with Nepal in any way.

We wished to treat Nepal as an independent country but,
at the same time, saw that, unless some steps were taken in
the internal sphere, difficulties might arise. Our advice,
given in all friendship, did not, however, produce any result.
During the last fortnight, some new developments have
taken place in Nepal. Our interest in the internal conditions
of Nepal has become still more acute and personal, because
of the developments across our borders, to be frank, especially
those in China and Tibet. Besides our sympathetic interest
in Nepal, we were also interested in the security of our own
country. From time immemorial, the Himalayas have provid-
ed us with a magnificent frontier. Of course, they are no
longer as impassable as they used to be but are still fairly
effective. We cannot allow that barrier to be penetrated
because it is also the principal barrier to India. Therefore,
much as we appreciate the independence of Nepal, we
cannot allow anything to go wrong in Nepal or permit that
barrier to be crossed or weakened, because that would be a
risk to our own security. The recent developments have
made us ponder more deeply over the Nepal situation than
we had done previously. All this time, however, we had
functioned in our own patient way, advising in a friendly
way and pointing out the difficulties inherent in the situa-
tion in a spirit of co-operation.

As the House knows, the King of Nepal is, at the present
moment, in Delhi along with two other members of the
Nepalese Government. The talks we have had with them have
yielded no results thus far. May I, in this connection, warn this
House not to rely too much on the statements that appear in
the newspapers? Nowadays, they have seldom any basis in fact.

Needless to say, we pointed out to the Ministers who
have come here that, above all, we desire a strong progressive
and independent Nepal. In fact, our chief need — not only

258

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

our need but also that of the whole world — is peace and
stability. Having said that, I should also like to add that we
are convinced that return to the old order will not bring
peace and stability to Nepal.

We have tried, for what it is worth, to advise Nepal to act
in a manner so as to prevent any major upheaval. We have
tried to find a way, a middle way, if you like, which will
ensure the progress of Nepal and the introduction of, or some
advance in, the ways of democracy in Nepal. We have
searched for a way which would, at the same time, avoid
the total uprooting of the ancient order. Whether or not it
is possible to find such a way, I do not know.

I would like to say one more thing in regard to the King
of Nepal. There has also been a good deal in the newspapers
about our recognition of the King of Nepal. When our
Ambassador to Nepal presented his credentials, he did so to
the King, although during the last hundred years or so the
King has had no say in any matter. Nevertheless, because of
international conventions our Ambassador had to go to the
King as the head of the State as did the Ambassadors of
other countries. The fact that Nepal has now entered into
diplomatic relations with many other nations has raised
questions about his status in each case. To say that we recog-
nize the King, as such, has no meaning. We went to the King
because he was considered to be the official head of the State.

We shall continue to recognize the King and I see no
reason why we should do anything else.

We are a patient Government. Perhaps, we are too
patient sometimes. I feel, however, that if this matter drags on
it will not be good for Nepal and it might even make it more
difficult to find the middle way we have been advocating.

We, in this country, speak a good deal of foreign affairs
and offer advice, for what it is worth, to other countries. But
the fact remains that such value as our advice may have is
only moral or psychological. The fate of the world depends
far more on the great Powers, on what they do and do not do.
The fate of the world depends more on the U.S.A., the
United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and China than on the
rest of the world put together. I should like to make an

THE GROWTH OF VIOLENCE

259

earnest appeal to these great countries to make every effort
to solve the present tangle by negotiations or other peaceful
means. The consequences of not doing so are too terrible to
contemplate. The irony of the situation is, in fact, that people
in every country desire peace; but at the present moment,
some evil fate seems to pursue humanity. It is driving
mankind in a direction which can only end in stark ruin. So, I
hope that these great countries will apply themselves to
securing peace and I am sure the House will join me in this
appeal. On behalf of my Government and, if I may say so,
this House, I should like to make a pledge, namely, that we
will do everything in our power to promote peace :nd to
avoid war.

THE GROWTH OF VIOLENCE

T his two days’ debate has ended in a somewhat unusual
manner and for the moment such thoughts as I have are
rather diffused. I have listened with great attention to what
hon. Members have said during these two days and I am
thankful to some of them who had words of commendation
for me. I am still more thankful to those who had words of
criticism against me or against the policy we have pursued.
The debate has covered many subjects and the expression of
opinion has varied greatly. As the House will sec there was
at one end Mr M. R. Masani and at the other end Mr
Brijeshwar Prasad while the others ranged between these
two extremes.

I don’t quite know whether I should deal with all the
points that have been raised. I think it might be better if I
chose some of the most important of them and dealt with these.
We have been discussing grave matters and though hilarity is
sometimes in place, it is not suitable at others. The subject
we have discussed is of he greatest importance During the
discussion we have been oppressed by a sense of tragedy and

Speech in reply to debate on Foreign Affairs in Parliament. New Delhi.
December 7, 1950

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1 949-1 95S

possible catastrophe. As I sat listening to the speeches of hon.
Members, many pictures floated before my mind; pictures of
the Korean battlefields, of marching armies and dying
people, of statesmen holding earnest converse in a room in
Washington to find a way out of the present predicament and
countless other pictures.

There is hardly anybody concerned with foreign affairs
who is not carrying a heavy burden and not trying to grope
for solution of our problems. I use the word ‘grope’,
because darkness surrounds us. Some hon. Members are full
of light — they have no need to grope. They know exactly
what should be done at any given moment. I envy them for
this feeling of lightness and confidence. Mr M. R. Masani
said in the course of his speech that it would be a great
tragedy if Mr Truman and Mr Attlee decided to appease
China. It is a pity Mr Masani is not at the White House in
Washington to advise them.

Many hon. Members have repeatedly referred to our
policy as being unrealistic; there have been hints that we are
sitting on the fence and that we are doubtful and uncertain.
It seems to me that the people who pride themselves on being
practical politicians normally know nothing of the existing
state of affairs or of the questions they will be called upon to
answer. It is easy enough to say that our policy is not realistic.
It is also easy to say that we are uncertain and inconsistent.
Anyway, it is not for me to boast of the policy of a govern-
ment with which I have been associated.

Our foreign policy, naturally, has to do with world affairs
but if any hon. Member thinks that the Government of
India moulds world affairs he is very much mistaken. I do not
say that we cannot or have not affected the world to some
extent. But obviously, we affect or influence it in a very
small measure. If the world goes wrong, then it may, of course,
be due to some error of ours but surely it would be the
resultant of a large number of policies, in particular the
policies of the powerful and influencial countries that
dominate the policies of the smaller and weaker countries.

Some hon. Members seem to think that because the
policies of other countries have failed, our policy must have

THE GROWTH OF VIOLENCE

861

been wrong. I have little to say to that but I would beg of the
hon. Members to look at the history of the past live years.
Since the last world war ended, the policies that have been
pursued by various countries have failed more often than not.
We have had little to do with these policies. We have ex-
pressed an opinion at best. Sometimes we have played a
passive'* role, sometimes, a small active role. But there are
moments when even a small thing can make all the difference.

Before I deal with the larger questions, I should like to
take up some matters that were brought up as interpellations.
Many hon. Members seem anxious that we should not weaken
our defence. Indeed, they talked of re-armament and of
increasing the strength of our Army, Navy and Air Force.
They were afraid that we might neglect them.

I should like to say something about this and the first
thing is that no government in this country can possibly treat
the question of defence lightly or allow it to weaken at any
time. Every government must give priority to the defence of
the country. But what is defence? Most people seem to
imagine that defence consists in large numbers of people
marching up and down with guns. It is true that armed men
and machines constitute defence. Defence means many other
things, too. It includes the industrial potential of a country,
the morale of a country and the like. All this has to balance
with the capacity and resources of the country and you
cannot upset this balance very much. You cannot over-
strain the capacity and the resources of a country without
dire consequences. What you can do to strengthen your
defences further, without upsetting anything, is to better your
morale and be determined not to surrender, whatever the
danger. If you do that, nothing can conquer you. But on the
contrary, if you rely too much on men with guns and lose
your moral fibre, then you are done for.

Therefore, when you talk of defence, remember your
resources; remember your capacity; and remember that
defence consists of the economic position of a country, of the
industrial potential of a country and of the defence forces.
Of course, it is possible to change the equation a little but
these are, broadly speaking, the limitations you have to work
u— 11 Drafts

262

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

within. Any defence force that cannot, more or less, provide
its own equipment, is not independent. There is no harm in
this, except in a crisis when the things for which the armed
forces depend on others are not available.

In other words, the real strength of a country lies in her
industrial resources. The strength of the defence forces and
everything connected with them depends on the develop-
ment of these resources. If not, then defence is just a superficial
thing which can be kept up by borrowing money but has no
basic strength. In these times of financial stringency we have
to consider whether twenty thousand odd men with guns are
more to our advantage than something more efficient.

It is true that no government dare take chances with the
defence of the country. But I would beg the hon. Members
who talk so much of defence and of danger to the country to
consider the question in another light. When there is danger,
how will you fight, with the best army in the world, if you
cannot feed it? Thus, defence becomes a food problem also.
It is not only a matter for guns. A hungry army cannot fight.
Hungry people behind an army are bad material. It is difficult
to fight both on the home front and on the battle front. The
food problem, therefore, comes first of all, whatever the issue.
The problem of industrial development and growth becomes
equally important in order to build up the resources necessary
for defence. All these necessities are linked and not one item
can be considered in isolation. We cannot afford to con-
centrate on defence at the cost of everything else. If we do
that then our defence will also fall through because there will
be no foundation for it.

The food problem has been discussed often enough in
this House. So have the sugar problem and the controls;
and the discussions have caused a great deal of excitement.
I regret that the sense of urgency that ought to exist in this
House and in the country is not there. We talk so much
about controls but if there is shortage of sugar, there are
protests all over the country. If that is our attitude, how
can we talk of defence? A country that cannot put up with
a few controls, a country that cannot do without sugar,
cannot face the enemy at a critical moment. We in India

THE GROWTH OF VIOLENCE

263

live in times of grave crisis and in such times people have to
give up everything that they hold dear — sometimes even
their families.

If you cannot give up your sugar, your wheat or vour rice
for a while, then the biggest army will not be able to
protect you, because you lack inner strength. Of course, we
must have the best army. It is no good maintaining a second-
rate or a weak army. But we cannot do this at the cost of our
people. We must, at the same time, be able to feed them and
also not let the economic position or the industrial growth
of the country suffer. We have to achieve a balance and try
to advance as rapidly as we can. That does not ultimately
depend on Government decrees. It may to some extent
depend on law. What it really depends on is the rer tion of
the public and the House to these questions.

In the context of the present world situation, food is the
most urgent and important need in this country today. We
must grow it, save it and not waste it but preserve it at all
costs.

Having achieved independence, we in this country seem
to have grown somewhat lax in our thought and deed during
the last few years. But I do not think we have lost the moral
fibre that brought us our independence. We did not weaken
or succumb when we were struggling for our freedom and I
doubt if we will now. Even if we do not have a single gun,
we are determined to fight to the end. We shall not surrender
to any aggressor whatsoever. I do not wish to indulge in tall
talk; and after a while this kind of thing docs become tall
talk. We must plan and think carefully and realize the
difficulties of the situation.

Listening to the speeches of other hon. Members, I felt
that some of them talked in what I consider a most unrealistic
fashion. They talked at length of power blocs and argued
whether there were two blocs or only one. Mr Masani felt
that there was only one bloc. If there is only one bloc, the
matter ends there; the question of our joining one or the
other does not arise.

I should like to remind the House with all respect that
these questions and arguments are completely out of date

264

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

They do not count today. The world marches rapidly and
changes, new situations develop and we have to deal with
each situation as it comes. For a person to think in terms of
blocs today means that he is yesterday’s man and that he is
not keeping pace with the changes in the world.

We have to deal with matters as they come up. In matters
of foreign policy especially, one has to decide almost every
hour what has to be done. We had this debate in the House,
because new situations have arisen and new dangers threaten
the world. We wanted the counsel of the House as to what
our line of action should be. We also wanted to make clear
what policy, generally speaking, we were pursuing.

I fear that we in this country, somehow or other, don’t
keep pace with events. We read about them in the news-
papers but we have fallen into fixed habits of thinking which
we do not overcome, however much the world changes. It
is no good telling me that you dislike Russia or China or
that you dislike the United States of America or the United
Kingdom. We have to deal with a situation that actually
exists. Facts are facts and will not disappear on account of
your likes or dislikes.

Military changes have taken place in Korea. All kinds of
dangerous things are happening. You cannot meet that
situation by simply expressing your strong disapproval of the
changes. What would you do if you were in a responsible
position and were called upon to act? Deliver a speech
telling people what you like and dislike and which bloc
you belong to? That won’t help anybody in the slightest.

It is in a spirit of realism that I want you to approach
the question of our foreign policy. I am sure it is in the same
spirit that President Truman and Mr Attlee are meeting in
Washington and conferring together. They have to deal with
a positive situation, they have to issue orders and they have to
decide what is to be done or not done. They cannot afford
to talk of vague theoretical things and waste their time with
"idealistic” or “moral” approaches to the situation.

I hope there is nothing immoral about the part I have
played in our foreign policy. In any case, I want no morali-
zing, especially about this. As it is, there is far too much

THE GROWTH OF VIOLENCE

265

moralizing in the country. People think that if they have
used a few moral words or slogans they have discharged their
duty. We should use our good sense as much as possible.
Idealism alone will not do. What exactly is idealism? Surely
it is not something so insubstantial as to elude one’s grasp!
Idealism is the realism of tomorrow. It is the capacity to
know what is good for the day after tomorrow or for the next
year and to fashion yourself accordingly. The practical
person, the realist, looks at the tip of his nose and sees little
beyond; the result is that he is stumbling all the time.

I should like the Members of this House to consider the
last five or six years of diplomatic history. In spite of every
effort, the world has repeatedly failed to achieve harmony.
The astonishing thing is that failure does not teach us a
lesson and we make the same mistakes over again. This is
really extraordinary. I should have thought that the lesson
of the two great world wars was obvious enough to anybody
willing to give thought to it. Apparently, it is not at all
obvious because the same path is still followed.

It may be that the crisis today is due to the fault of a
nation or a group of nations. It may be Russia’s fault or the
fault of the communist group of nations. What do we do
when a group of nations functions in an objectionable way?

People talk a great deal about communism and as an hon.
Member pointed out, some Members thought that we had
turned this discussion into an anti-communist conference.
Communism is certainly an interesting subject and one that
is worthy of discussion but it does not have much bearing on
the issue. I am sure that those who think only in terms of
communism and anti-communism are going hopelessly astray
and will never reach any goal. The difficulty is that much of
the thinking — not so much here as elsewhere — revolves round
these words.

The House knows very well what the policy of the Gov-
ernment of India has been in regard to communist activities
in this country. It has not been a tender policy and it is not
going to be a tender policy. We must look at the world as it
is and recognize that mighty forces are at work and millions
of people have come under their influence. We must try to

206 JAWAHAR1.AI, NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

understand them and try as far as we can to divert them into
right channels and prevent them from going into wrong ones.
That is our problem. Some hon. Members seem to think
that I should issue an ultimatum to China, that I should
warn them not to do this or that or that I should send them a
letter saying that it is foolish to follow the doctrine of
communism. I do not see how it is going to help anybody if
I act in this way. Remember, the world has many countries.
Some of them arc called Great Powers by virtue of their
influence. They arc nations with great resources behind
them and inevitably play a significant part in the world’s
history today.

The United States of America is a great democratic
Power. The United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R., even though
their policies differ, greatly influence the world’s history and
no one can deny China the status of a Great Power today.
China is in a position to shape her own destiny and that is a
great thing. It is true that she is controlled by communists
as Russia is. It would be interesting to know whether or not
her type of communism is the same as Russia’s, how she will
develop and how close the association between China and
Russia will be.

The point at issue is that China is a great nation which
cannot be ignored, no matter what resolution you may pass.
Nor can you ignore the United States of America. Some
people talk of American imperialism and American dollars
in a hostile fashion. You cannot condemn or ignore the
whole nation just because )ou do not approve of some aspect
of the myriad shapes of American life. We have to take facts
as they are. The most relevant fact at the moment is that
there are some great nations in this world with concentrated
power in their hands that influence all the other nations.
That being so, there is a conflict between these powerful
nations — an ideological conflict as well as a political conflict.
Either these nations will have a war and try to suppress or
defeat one another or one group will triumph over the other.
There seems to be no other way. Although there is a great
deal of talk about ideologies, I doubt if they come into the
picture at all except as weapons.

THE GROWTH OI VIOLENCE

267

The only way seems to be the avoidance of war. All
nations must be free to develop as they like without any
external interference. This does not mean that they will not
influence one another in a variety of ways. It is possible that
the existing contradictions may gradually be solved in that
manner. On the other hand, they may not. I am not a pro-
phet; I do not know. In any case, the way of war does not
solve them. The concentration of power in the hands of these
great nations and the fact that the power is not too unevenly
matched, means a very disastrous war. It also means no
ultimate victory. There may be a military victory; but there
will be no real victory, if by victory you mean the ;» hieve-
ment of certain objectives.

I doubt if, after the terrible disaster of a world war,
democracy can survive. The democratic nations may win
the war — mind you, I have little doubt that they will — but
I doubt if after the disaster of a world war democracy can
survive at all. I even doubt whether any high standards of
living can survive. I have no doubt that the great nations
wish to avoid war because they are aw’are of its consequences.
No one can assert that America wants war. I cannot imagine
anything more unlikely. If America wanted war, who could
have stopped her? She obviously does not. She wants to
avoid war because she is aware of the great disasters a world
war will cause. England also wants to avoid war. In spite of
this, forces are impelling these nations in a direction which
may lead to war. The biggest task today is to prevent that
and that is the task for England, for America, for us and for
all other countries.

I do not know what people mean when they talk of this
or that group; nor do I understand them when they accuse
our Government of sitting on the fence in matters of foreign
policy. People who talk like that know nothing of what they
are talking about and do not study or read or understand
what is happening around them. I have repeatedly said in
this House that I have no desire to get entangled in foreign
affairs. That is not my ambition. My work in this country is
big enough and difficult enough. But in spite of our policy,
we sometimes cannot help getting entangled in foreign affairs.

268

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-195S

I suppose some Hon. Members think that taking part in
foreign affairs means delivering impassioned orations, con-
demning something or other. It is true that we have not done
that; nor do we propose to do that in the future. The way
we participate in world affairs is to take part daily and hourly
in the deliberations at the United Nations, at Lake Success
and in the various capitals of the world. I should like to say
that we have been served very well by our representatives in
the important capitals of the world. They are often criticized
but it is difficult for them to reply to that criticism; nor
is it easy for me to talk about our Ambassadors. But I want
to say clearly that we have been served very well by our
Ambassadors at Lake Success, in Washington, in London, in
Peking and in Moscow.

You might have read in the newspapers about the initia-
tive that our representatives at Lake Success took in common
with a- large number of other Asian representatives and put
up a proposal that the Chinese Government be asked to agree
to a cease-fire and to give assurances that they would not go
beyond 38th Parallel. We talked about the 38th Parallel in
another connection some time ago. The roles are reversed
for the moment and they may be reversed again. It is not
realistic to talk as if nothing had happened. Our represen-
tative, Sri B. N. Rau, made this proposal and the
representatives of almost every Asian country agreed to
support it. I do not know what the reaction of the Chinese
Government will be but I welcome -the initiative of our
representatives and I am quite sure that every peace-lov in g
individual, whatever he may be, will welcome it and that the
Governments of the U.S.A. and U.K. will welcome it, too.
This does not solve any problem. The problems are too big
to be solved this way; but when you are driving hard towards
catastrophe and disaster, every move of this kind gives you
time to consider and negotiate and this is useful and valuable.
This, therefore, is a good move and I hope it will succeed. If
it does, it will bring relief not only to the harassed people
who are actually facing the trouble but also, to those people,
not less harassed, who have to worry about these matters from
a distance.

THE GROWTH OF VIOLENCE

I had not used the word ‘bloc’ in my address to this House
yesterday but the word has been bandied about a good deal
since I spoke. I am not thinking in terms of blocs, because it
does not interest me very much. I am only concerned with
my policy on each specific issue. Acharya Kripalani accused
us of judging each question in isolation from everything else.
I am aware that this can only be done in academic talk. No
person dealing with realities can afford to do so. In fact,
every question that comes before us has to be seen from a
hundred different view-points. We have to weigh carefully
its possible effects and consequences. I can only say that in
every matter that comes up we have friendly consultations
with a large number of countries. We do hardly anything
without consulting the countries of the Commonwealth. Of
course, we are in close touch with the U.S.A. and with other
countries. We have been in close contact with the countries
of South-East Asia like Burma and Indonesia. They are
constantly keeping us informed of what they do. This process
goes on all the time with the result that we arrive at a decision
which fits in with what a number of countries think. If it does
not wholly fit in, we always try to make it fit in. If our view-
point is different, you cannot expect me to give up our view-
point or the results that we have arrived at because some
other nations think differently I just would not do that. I
do not understand long and repeated arguments about this.
I am on my country’s side and on nobody else’s.

We have many friends and we collaborate and co-operate
with them. But I am not prepared to surrender my judgement
or my country’s judgement or my country’s position to any
single country or group of countries. Then again, some people
say we are isolated. I do not see how we are isolated when
we act with others.

I beg this House to consider Asia specially — Asia in a
tremendous ferment of change. One does not know whether
that change is good or bad. It may be bad but to my mind it
does not concern Asia alone. Many things are taking place
which I dislike intensely. I am not, for the moment, talking of
war which is bad enough but rather about the temper of
people as a whole and of all that one holds precious in life

270

JAWAHARLAI, NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

which gradually seems to be fading out, whichever country
you may consider. People have become more brutal in
thought, speech and action. All the graciousness and
gentleness of life seems to have ebbed away. The human
values seem to have suffered considerably. Of course, plenty of
humaa values still remain; I am not saying that everything
worthwhile is completely destroyed but I do say that the
process of coarsening is going on apace all over the world,
including our own country. We are being coarsened and
vulgarized all over the world because of many things but
chiefly because of violence and the succession of wars. If
this process continues, I wonder whether anything of value in
life will remain for sensitive individuals.

We talk of victory and defeat, war and peace. Surely,
we fight a war to gain some objectives and not merely to boast
that we have knocked the other party down. The very objec-
tives for which human life and human society have stood all
these years now seem to be challenged. They are challenged
sometimes by a theory or an ideology. They are challenged
by authoritarianism which crushes the individual and they
are challenged even in democratic societies, not by democracy
but by this growth of violence and by the mentality that war
breeds. In this state of affairs, are we to allow ourselves to be
swept away and lose all our integrity of thought or action or
should we hold fast to it and try to understand and co-operate
with our friends?

Of course, where we feel that there -is a wrong course of
action, we part company. I do not see how any hon. Member
can have any doubt when such a thing happens. One has to
follow the right course and follow it regardless of conse-
quences. We talk of possible invasions of India, of our
frontiers being threatened, of something that may happen
even though far from India, which may be a danger to the
world. I hope'we have still enough moral fibre and spirit left in
us to face any danger not only on the borders of our country
but far away, if we think it is a danger to the world.

There are two or three other matters and I will, if I may,
deal with them separately. One of them relates to Nepal.
My attention has been drawn to the fact that perhaps I was

THE GROWTH OF VIOl ENGE

271

unjust in what I said about the State of Nepal. My description
of the independence of Nepal, I am told, was perhaps not
quite correct. I think it was perfectly correct but I have been
somewhat misunderstood. What I said yesterday was this,
that the independence of a counir> is ultimately judged by
the foreign relations of that country. A country can be com-
pletely independent as Nepal has been; but, if it has no
foreign relations, it does not count in the comity of nations
in the way an independent country does. I pointed out that
during the last hundred years or more, although Nepal was
an independent country, she had no foreign relations except
through the British in India. That was her only wii dow to
the outside world. It is only during the last 20 to 30 years
that I believe she has had an Ambassador at the Court of
St. James and, still more recently, in America. What I wish
to make clear is this: I was not hinting that the British
Government in India prevented her from having independent
foieign relations but rather that she herself did not think it
necessary or desirable or feasible to develop these
international contacts.

Much has been said about Nepal in the course of this
debate. I do not wish to add anything to what I said yester-
day. I think I have made our position clear enough. It is
now almost exactly a month since this new situation
developed in Nepal and we have dealt with it, I think I may
well claim, with a very great deal of patience. We have been
criticized by various people on various grounds because of
that. Nevertheless, we do not intend to be rushed. What I
said yesterday was clear enough indication, not only of how
our minds were working but of the steps that we were taking
or rather the line that we were adopting in our talks. We«
propose to adhere to that line and as soon as the time comes
to make any precise formal announcement, I shall come to
the House and make it.

I have spoken of China and, more particularly, of Tibet.
Prof. Ranga seems to have been displeased at my occasional
reference to Chinese suzerainty over Tibet. Please note that
I used the word suzerainty, not sovereignty. There is a slight
difference, though not much. I was telling the House about

272

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

a historical fact; I was not discussing the future. It is
a historical fact and in the context of things it is perfectly
true that we have repeatedly admitted Chinese suzerainty
over Tibet just as we have laid stress on Tibet’s autonomy.
But apart from this historical or legal or constitutional
argument or even the argument that Mr Gautam raised
about buffer States and the like which, if I may say so, is not
much of an argument, though it may be his desire and my
desire, the real point to be made is that it is not right for any
country to talk about its sovereignty or suzerainty over an
area outside its own immediate range. That is to say, since
Tibet is not the same as China, it should ultimately be the
wishes of the people of Tibet that should prevail and not any
legal or constitutional arguments. That, I think, is a valid
point. Whether the people of Tibet are strong enough to
assert their rights or not, is another matter. Whether we are
strong enough or any other country is strong enough to see
that this is done is also another matter. But it is a right and
proper thing to say and I see no difficulty in saying to the
Chinese Government that whether they have suzerainty over
Tibet or sovereignty over Tibet, surely, according to any
principles, the principles they proclaim and the principles I
uphold, the last voice in regard to Tibet should be the voice
of the people of Tibet and of nobody else.

Sir, I do not know how you are going to proceed about
this Motion. There are a number of amendments. I cannot
accept any amendment. I think Mr Anthony’s amendment
was about our resisting communistic aggression. I just do not
understand how that amendment fits in. I am going to resist
every type of aggression, regardless of whether it is communist
or not.

There is one other matter and I am sorry to take more of
the time of the House. Pandit Kunzru criticized very much
the attitude that we have taken up in the United Nations.
That attitude has been governed by two factors. One is our
judging the situation and deciding what would help at the
time. The other was our feeling throughout that it was not
much good passing resolutions which, generally speaking,
were condemnatory and associating ourselves with such

THE TEMPER OF PEACE

279

condemnation even though that condemnation might be
justified, because that does not help. We wanted to find a
way out. Our associating with that particular resolution
would perhaps have meant a reduction in our capacity to
help. Having condemned, we could not have approached
the other party or dealt with it in any way. We could neither
have understood their view-point nor could we have placed
it before our other colleagues and friendly countries. Had
we supported the resolution, we would not have been able to
perform such -useful function or service as we do now. Apart
from this, our general approach in this matter aims at peace
and a settlement. If one is aiming at peace and a settlement,
one should adopt ways that lead to peace and not those that
lead to war. It may be that people do not want war- but one
must beware of action that may lead to war. In this particular
case, for instance, action has been taken which, it was thought,
would not lead to an extension of the fighting area but which
has, in fact, led to consequences that the people do not like
and did not foresee. Therefore, in regard to those resolutions,
we felt that we should not support them because that meant
reducing the chances of a settlement by peaceful methods.

THE TEMPER OF PEACE

p 1 riends, it is always a pleasure for me to come to England.

I have many friends here and the memory of my earlier
days surrounds me. I welcome, therefore, this opportunity to
come here again but the pleasure that this would have
brought me has been marred somewhat by the crisis which
confronts the world and the burdens which each one of us
has to bear. This makes me somewhat hesitant to talk to you.
It would serve little purpose for me to repeat platitudes. To
refer frankly to the matters of grave import which oppress us
today is not easy for me in my present position. It would ill
become me to say anything which embarrasses friends here
and yet this very consciousness of pervasive friendliness in

Broadcast from London, Januan 12, 1951

274

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

England emboldens me to talk to you as to friends who have
a common purpose in view and who wish to co-operate in
achieving it.

What is that purpose? Surely, today, it is the avoidance
of war and the maintenance of peace. Of my generation
many have lived the greater part of their lives and only a
few years remain for us. It matters little what happens to our
generation but it does matter a great deal what happens to
hundreds of millions of others and to the world at large.
Today, these hundreds of millions all over the world live
under some kind of suspended sentence of death and from
day to day an atmosphere is created in people’s minds of the
inevitability of war. Helplessly we seem to be driven towards
the abyss. More and more people in responsible positions
talk in terms of passion, revenge and retaliation. They talk
of security and behave in a way which is likely to put an
end to all security. They talk of peace, and think and act in
terms of war.

Are we so helpless that we cannot stop this drift towards
catastrophe? I am sure that we can, because vast masses of
people in every country want peace. Why, then, should they
be driven by forces apparent!) beyond their control in a
contrary direction? Politicians and statesmen strive for
peace through the technique of politics which consists in
devising carefull) wordetl formulae. During the last ten days,
the Commonwealth Prime Ministers ha\e wrestled with
this problem of world peace. All of us earnestly seek peace. I
hope that our labours will help in producing the desired
result. But something more is necessary than mere formulae.
What we need is a passion for peace and for civilized be-
haviour in international affairs. It is the temper of peace
and not the temper of war that we want, even though peace
is sometimes casually mentioned.

It is to this temper of peace that I want especially to
direct my mind and your mind. We are in the midst of an
international crisis and, perhaps, even a greater crisis that
confronts us today is the crisis in the spirit of man. We have
built up a great civilization and its achievements are re-
markable. It holds the promise of even greater achievements

THE TEMPER OF PEACE

275

in the future. But while these material achievements are
very great, somehow we appear to be slipping away from
the very essence of civilization. Ultimately, culture and
civilization rest in the mind and behaviour of man and not
in the material evidence of it that we see around us. In times
of war the civilizing process stops and we go back to some
barbarous phase of the human mind. Are we speeding back
to this barbarism of the mind?

If we desire peace, we must develop the temper of peace
and try to win even those who may be suspicious of us or who
think they are against us. We have to try to understand
others just as we expect them to understand us. We r annot
seek peace in the language of war or of threats. You will all
remember the magnificent example of which both England
and India have reason to be proud. Both of us, in spite of
long continued conflict, approached our problems with this
basic temper of peace and we not only resolved them but
produced, at the same time, abiding undo standing and
friendship. That is a great example which we might well bear
in mind whenever any other crisis in the relations of nations
confronts us. This is the only civilized approach to problems
and leaves no ill will or bitterness behind.

I am not a pacifist. Unhappily, the world of today finds
that it cannot do without force. We have to protect ourselves
and to prepare ourselves for every contingency. We have to
meet aggression and evils of other kind. To surrender to evil
is always bad. But in resisting evil, we must not allow our-
selves to be swept away by our own passions and fears and
act in a manner which is itself evil. Even in resisting evil and
aggression, we have always to maintain the temper of peace
and hold out the hand of friendship to those who, through
fear or for other reasons, may be opposed to us. That is the
lesson that our great leader Mahatma Gandhi taught us
and, imperfect as we are, wc draw inspiration from that great
teaching.

In Asia, as you know, great changes have taken place. I
fear that most of us and, perhaps, more particularly you of
the West do not realize the vastness of these changes. We are
living through a great historic process which has created a

276

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-195S

ferment in the minds of hundreds of millions of people and
which can be seen at work in political and economic changes.
Asia has a very long history behind it and for long ages it has
played an outstanding part in the world. During the last
two or three hundred years it suffered an eclipse. Now it is
emerging from its colonial status. Inevitably, this is making
a great difference to the balance of forces in the world. The
old equilibrium has been upset and can never be restored.
That is a basic fact to remember. Asia is essentially peaceful
but it is also proud and sensitive and very conscious of its
newly-won freedom. In its exuberance it may go wrong
occasionally. It has mighty problems of its own and wishes to
live at peace with the rest of the world but it is no longer
prepared to tolerate any domination or threat of domination
or any behaviour after the old pattern of colonialism. It
demands recognition of its new position in the world. There-
fore, I would like you to view with understanding and sym-
pathy these historic changes which are taking place in Asia,
for it is of the utmost importance that Europe and Asia
should understand each other. Nor should we forget the
millions of people who are still under colonial domination in
Africa and elsewhere. Outworn formulae of a past age will not
help. A new approach and understanding are needed and
if these are forthcoming, I feel sure that Asia will respond
with all friendship. The countries of Asia need and seek
friendship and co-operation, for they have tremendous
problems to solve. These problems are concerned with the
primary needs of their peoples — food, clothing, housing
and the other necessities of life. They are too busy with these
problems to desire to be entangled in international conflicts.
But they are being dragged into them against their will.

Great nations have arisen in Asia with long memories of
the past they have lived through and with their eyes fixed
on a future of promise. India, Pakistan, Burma, Ceylon and
Indonesia have recently acquired their freedom. China has
taken a new shape and a new form. But whether we like
that shape and form or not, we have to recognize that a
great nation has been reborn and is conscious of her new
strength. China, in her new-found strength, has acted some-

A GREAT CHALLENGE

277

times in a manner which I deeply regret. But we have to
remember the background of China, — as of other Asian
countries, the long period of struggle and frustration, the
insolent treatment that they received from imperialist powers
and the latter’s refusal to deal with them on terms of equality.
.It is neither right nor practical to ignore the feelings of
hundreds of millions of people. It is no longer safe to do so.
We, in India, have had two thousand years of friendship
with China. We have differences of opinion and even small
conflicts but when we hark back to that long past something
of the wisdom of that past also helps us to understand each
other. And so, we endeavour to maintain friendly r < lations
with this great neighbour of ours, for the peace of Asia
depends upon these relations.

The immediate problem of today is the problem of the
Far East. If that is not solved satisfactorily, trouble will
spread to Europe and to the rest of the world. And, perhaps,
Furope, with her magnificent record of progress, not only
in material achievements but also in the culture of the mind
and spit it, will suffer most if war comes. Therefore, we must
come to grips with this Far Eastern problem with the firm
determination to solve it. We can only do so with the temper
and approach of peace and friendship and not by threats.
The time when threats were effective is long past. No question
of saving face or prestige should come in the way of this
human and civilized approach to the problems of our age.

Our task is the preservation of peace and, indeed, of our
civilization. To this task let us bend our energies and find
fellowship and strength in each other.

A GREAT CHALLENGE

pi riekds and comrades, as you know, I have just come back
from Europe after spending nearly three weeks in London,
Paris and other places. It was difficult for me to leave India

Broadcast from All India R&dio, Delhi, January 24, 1951
19 — 1 1 DPD/6S

278 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1049-1955

where so many problems demanded attention. Nevertheless,
I am glad I went and I think my visit has perhaps done
some good. I was in Europe at a critical time when the issues
of war and peace hung in the balance. I endeavoured to
throw the whole weight of our country on the side of peace
and a negotiated settlement of the conflict in the Far East.

On my return, I have had both good news and bad. The
first news that I received filled me with sorrow. This was
about the death of that grand old man, Thakkar Bapa, than
whom no one has been more devoted to the cause of our
backward and under-privileged brothers and sisters especially
the tribal folk.

Another piece of news related to the settlement in Nepal.
It is easy to criticize this as it is to criticize any step; but I am
convinced that it was a statesmanlike act, on the part of all
concerned, to come to this agreement. It marks the beginning
of a new era in the history of our sister country. There will
be many difficulties ahead and a multitude of problems, but
if the people of Nepal and their representatives seek the good
of their country with a singleness of purpose and co-operate
with one another in this great task, I am sure that success
will come to them. The immediate task for the proposed
interim Government is to take charge of the administration
of the country and to establish peace and order. Nepal is
independent and we value her independence. But she is
also in close touch with India and, therefore, we have
especially welcomed the big step towards democracy that is
about to be taken.

Perhaps, our biggest problem at present is that of food or
rather the scarcity of it. There is naturally much apprehen-
sion and some suffering because of this. As you know, we have
tried our utmost to secure food from abroad and we hope
that our efforts will succeed. Meanwhile, we have to share
such food as we have and this involves a tightening of the
belt for all of us. Let each person also remember that he
should not have more than his share, for this can only result
in others having less than their share.

I am speaking to you almost on the eve of the first anni-
versary of the establishment of our Republic. We have passed

A GREAT CHALLENGE

279

through a difficult year, both nationally and internationally
and our difficulties continue. It has been a year of some
achievements, of many disasters and sorrows and of continued
international tension. We are not the only country which
has had to face these heavy burdens. The world is sick today
and no country and no sensitive person can be healthy when
we see this sorrow and sickness all around. We have no magic
remedies for the world’s ills or our own. The only remedy is
to try to understand the disease. The crisis of the world de-
mands that we forget our petty differences and stand shoulder
to shoulder in the service of our country and of humanity.
Within a few days, the All-India Congress Commit ce will
be meeting in Ahmedabad and a special duty de\ olves on
those soldiers of freedom who will meet again in the city that
was hallowed by the presence of Gandhiji. Let us meet there,
as elsewhere, in the spirit of reverent service, with the desire
to sink our differences and co-operate in the great tasks that
have fallen to us.

Although our internal problems are great and complex,
they are, for the moment, overshadowed by the crisis in
international affairs, because the future of our country, as
that of every country, depends on how we deal with this
crisis and on its outcome. If we cannot solve it peacefully and
the world drifts towards war, then, indeed, our generation
will have failed miserably and it will have to pay a very
heavy price for that failure. There is no half-way house for
us; we can either work whole-heartedly and with all the
strength we have to avert the awful calamity of a world war
or we must allow the world to sink into an abyss. Let no man
think that any good to him or to his country will come of a
war. A war will convulse the whole world, bringing not only
infinite destruction in its train but also corrupting the souls
of those who survive. We are thus facing a great challenge
to our civilization and to such culture as we may possess.
How are we going to answer this challenge?

As I speak to you, sharp debates are going on at Lake
Success on this very issue and earnest men are arguing with
one another about what should be done. I have no doubt
that all of them, as well as the countries they represent,

280

JAWAHARALAL NEHRU S SPEECHES 1919-1953

desire to avoid war, for, knowing what it means no person
can seek it deliberately. And yet, in the passion of the
moment, many things are said and done which may lead to
the war we all seek to avoid. We have, therefore, to be clear
in our minds and firm in our purpose. We must not be swept
away by any gusts of passion or prejudice, for great tasks rest
on us and more especially on those who occupy positions of
responsibility.

The most urgent problem today is that of the Far East.
A brutal war has raged in Korea for many months and
innumerable innocent lives have been sacrificed. I think it is
true that there was aggression there but it is also true that of
the parties concerned none is wholly free from blame. For
the past year or more, we persistently urged that the new
China should be given a place in the counsels of the world
at Lake Success. Yet this was not done and most people realize
now that the fate of the world might well have been different
had that obvious fact been recognized. There has been
reluctance to accept the great changes that have come over
Asia. There is still an attempt sometimes to treat the great
nations of Asia in the old way. But the major fact of the age
is the emergence of a new Asia. This has naturally upset
the old equilibrium and balance of power but the change
must be recognized, if we are to deal realistically with the
world of today. Because the United Nations did not recognize
it, difficulties arose that still continue to trouble us.

There was, as you know, the question of crossing the 38th
Parallel in Korea. Adequate notice and warning was given
but it was not heeded and further complications ensued. Can
we not say now, wiser after the event, that this was a major
error, which should have been avoided?

It serves little purpose to go back to past history except to
learn from it. We have to deal with the present and the
future but it sometimes appears that we have failed to learn
any lessons from the past. A proposal has been made in the
United Nations to name China an aggressor and, quite
possibly, it is being discussed today. This proposal cannot
lead to peace. It can only lead to an intensification of the
conflict and might, perhaps, close the door to further negotia-

A GREAT CHALLENGE

281

tions. It is a tremendous responsibility for any person to take
such a step. At no time should this door be closed, for if we
close it, we also close the door to a civilized approach to
any problem.

I have been intimately concerned with recent develop-
ments and I have closely followed them. I am convinced that
tliere is an overwhelming desire for peace all over the world,
both in the East and the West. My visit to Western countries
has convinced me of this. The information 1 have received
from our Ambassador in Peking has also convinced me that
the People’s Government of China is eager to have negotia-
tions for a settlement of the Korean dispute and of tl e other
problems in the Far East. Their reply to the resolutions of
the Political Committee of the United Nations, embodying
certain principles, was considered by some people as a rejec-
tion of those principles. After the closest scrutiny, I was
totally unable to understand this criticism.

Their reply was a partial acceptance of those principles
and certain further suggestions were made which were
obviously meant to be discussed. Subsequent to this, further
clarification has come from the Chinese Government and
this has made it even more clear that they are desirous of
negotiations for peace in the Far East. It is easy to argue
about words and phrases and such arguments can continue
indefinitely. But the occasion demands the highest statesman-
ship and an approach to these vital problems in a temper of
peace and friendliness. It is obvious to me that enough has
been said on both sides to make it clear that negotiations in
conference will be the next fruitful step. The time has come,
therefore, when the representatives of the Powers concerned
should meet and discuss these problems instead of talking at
each other across thousands of miles.

If the problem of the Far East is tackled with success it
will by itself remove the great tension that exists in the world;
and it will then be easier to tackle the other problems of
Asia and Europe. We have thus the great opportunity of
turning the tide of events away from war and in the direc-
tion of enduring peace.

I would appeal to the great nations of the West, who are

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

the repositories of a magnificent culture that we admire and
whose astonishing scientific and technical achievements
have opened a new era for mankind, not to lose this opportu-
nity in their search for peace. To the nations of Asia, I can
speak, perhaps, in even more intimate language and express
the fervent hope that they will stand by the methods of peace,
whatever happens.

WE WILL NOT COMPROMISE

rpHosE hon. Members who have sponken during this debate
hose hon. Members who have spoken during this debate
ces to our foreign policy that there is really very little that I
need to say in defence of it. As far as I have been able to make
out, there is a great deal of agreement in this House on the
objectives and trends of our foreign policy and I must express
my gratitude to the House for its kind reception to our views.

It is not an easy matter to speak on a subject which is as
wide as the world before us and which involves so many
varied and difficult problems. I confess that, although I have
given a great deal of attention to these matters over a period
of years and am constantly in touch with developments as
they occur, I have not yet been able to grasp this sorry scheme
of things in the world today, in its entirety. I try to do so as
much as I can and take counsel with my colleagues and
advisers but, of necessity, the world becomes more and more
complicated and with it our foreign policy.

An hon. Member, speaking this morning, quoted a
dictum of Bismarck in support of his conclusion that we
should consider our frontiers to be somewhere in East Africa,
Malaya, Burma and various other distant places. The hon.
Member’s observation and his quotation from Bismarck for
a moment transported me to another century. And I am sure
that the hon. Member himself spends his time mostly in

Speech during debate on Foreign Affairs in Parliament, New Delhi, March, 28,

1951

WE WILL NOT COMPROMISE

283

another century. I am sure he will find out sooner or later
that not only has Bismarck been long dead but his policies
are still more dead. And if any country were to emulate his
policy, it is bound to fail. If we begin to think in terms of
our frontiers extending thousands of miles away from India
then others will think of their frontiers as existing in India
-and immediately clashes are bound to occur. The fact of the
matter is that this nineteenth century outlook which the
hon. Member represents in this House, was the outlook of a
few imperialist and expansionist European Powers who were
trying to spread over the world, in Africa, in Asia and else-
where, sometimes coming into conflict with the peoples of
these continents and at others going to war with one another
while trying to grab the world and divide it up among them-
selves. There is no part of the world now left for ar ./ imperia-
list Power to seize. That rnay not, of course, prevent them
from trying to do so and they may conceivably take posses-
sion of some territory here and there for some time. There
is no doubt that there still exist people with expansionist
ambitions.

So, let us forget the nineteenth century and think of this
critical, rather tragic period in the twentieth century instead
in which we live. Let us not imagine that foreign policy is
like a game of chess played by superior statesmen sitting in
their chancelleries. It is much more complicated than that,
for it is governed by the aspirations of hundreds of millions
of people whose economic needs and objectives are motivated
by a variety of causes. It is governed by the threat of war,
a war on an unimaginable scale which has been made
possible by tremendous technological developments. Foreign
policy is, thus, no more a matter, as in the olden days, of
siding with one Power against another in return for some
territorial possession or advantage. We cannot deal with this
international situation without understanding the basic
causes underlying it, except by evaluating these in terms of
the objectives that inspire our own activities and shape our
policies.

When people talk of alignment of nations, they over-
simplify the related issues. I can understand alignments in

284

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

times of war; they are probably inevitable. But I fail to
understand why this war-time psychology of alignment
should be imported into times of relative peace and why
any country should be persuaded to line up with one group
or another. .

My statement holds good irrespective of the policies or
objectives of such rival groups. Under such circumstances
our policy would be simple without, at the same time, being
either passive or negative — we would do our utmost to avoid
a world war or any war for that matter, we shall judge all
issues on their merits and act in conformity with our
objective. By aligning ourselves with only one Power, you
surrender your opinion, give up the policy you would
normally pursue because somebody else wants you to pursue
another policy. I do not think that it would be a right policy
for us to adopt. If we did align ourselves we would only fall
between two stools. We will neither be following the policy
based on our ideals inherited from our past or the one
indicated by our present nor will we be able easily to adapt
ourselves to the new policy consequent on such alignment.
Our present policy flows from what we have thought and said
in the past, while incidentally it also helps in the maintenance
of peace and the avoidance of war in the world today.

During the debate, repeated references were made to
external publicity. I shall frankly confess that I am not
satisfied with our external publicity. I am not satisfied with
it for a variety of reasons, the first among them being that it
is inadequate due to financial reasons. Secondly, the personnel
in charge of it is not quite as well trained or as satisfactory as
we should like it to be. The hon. Members who spoke on
this subject said that they wanted persons in charge of our
external publicity to be well versed in India’s history, culture
etc. I agree with them and we certainly would like to have
such people. The hon. Members also suggested that they
should be trained journalists. In addition to these, of course,
there are obviously other specific qualities required of those
engaged in external publicity. An officer may prove to be
a great success in the United States of America but may turn
out to be a complete failure, say, in China or in a European

WE WILL NOT COMPROMISE

285

country. There are certain special qualities and knowledge
that may be required of the personnel depending on the
country to which they are likely to be posted. The selection
of personnel for external publicity is thus as difficult as the
selection of diplomatic personnel.

Apart from this, I should like the House 'o considci
whether our external publicity should he done in the same
way as in the U.S.A. or the United Kingdom. They are
great countries with ample resources; the money they spend
on publicity abroad is enormous and far beyond our means.
Speaking for myself, even if I had all that money, I would
not spend it in the same way. I would much ratht r make
use of it for the development of our country. We cannot
compete with them and we do not want to compete with
them. Our ways arc different and our background is different.

While the quality of our publicity admittedly depends on
the ability of our representatives, what we say about our
achievements ultimately depends on the achievements them-
selves. And what is the test of the efficacy of our external
publicity or even of our foreign policy? The ultimate test
is whether our country rises in status in the councils of the
world or not. It is certainly true that the policies of our
Government come up for criticism in other countries,
especially those which do not approve of our policies. Yet,
the status of India in the world is much greater today than
ever before. I do not wish to dwell upon this point further,
for ultimately what we really ate matters more than what
other people think of us.

Very often, on specific issues, the bulk of opinion may be
against us in a particular country. Under these circumstances,
it will be unfair to expect our representative abroad to be
able to influence a whole country merely through pamphlets
and talks. He can only outline our general policies and bring
them to the notice of the public in diat country. He cannot
convince people of our policies against their will. We cannoL
hold him responsible if our policies do not find favour with
the public in a foreign country. It is we here who are
responsible for evolving policies. Unfortunately, today, there
is a great deal of adverse criticism in some countries against

286

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1955

our policy and sometimes it takes rather a personal form,
too. Well, I do not think we should mind this over much.

Some hon. Members have made the extraordinary sugges-
tion that we issue an ultimatum to the foreign powers who
have possessions in India; they advocate what they call a
'strong line.’ One does not go about, in this complicated
world, issuing ultimatums, unless one follows the policies of
Bismarck which the hon. Member referred to, unless one had
the strength of Bismarck behind one. Let me make clear our
policy in regard to foreign possessions in India. India cannot
tolerate any footholds of foreign powers in this country. We
are anxious to give the people in these areas an opportunity
to live their own life and the right to choose their future. We
do not wish to interfere with their ways of life. There are only
two ways of bringing this about — either through war or
through diplomatic means. In pursuance of our ideals, we
have ruled out war as a means of redress, unless we are
forced into one. The only alternative we are left with is the
diplomatic method and we are pursuing it.

In the world as it is today, it is impossible to force the
pace of events 01 act decisively and firmly in such matters as
this without endangering the peace not only in the region
concerned but in the world as a whole. Our attitude to
foreign possessions in India has, of necessity, been cautious
and our progress in securing results necessarily slow. In so
far as a peaceful solution avoids entanglements, it may even
prove to be the swiftest of solutions.

The House is no doubt aware that foreign ministers of
certain important countries are meeting in Europe and
proceeding very slowly only to draw up an agenda. If these
matters are discussed round a conference table, there is always
hope of some solution being found. It may not prove to be a
lasting solution but, at any rate, it will serve to avert war.
We venture to suggest that the same method be employed in
the Far East and that the Powers concerned should gather
round a conference table. At one time, it almost seemed as
if this were possible but unfortunately it did not take place;
events took a different turn and the United Nations passed
a resolution which, temporarily at least, came in the way

WE WILL NOT COMPROMISE

287

of a negotiated settlement. Meanwhile, the war is going on in
Korea and, whatever the result of this war, it is eventually
the people of Korea, I suppose, who will suffer most. It is a
sad commentary on our times that, whether one country
sets out to enslave another or whether it seeks to liberate it,
the consequences are exactly the same. In either case, it is
death and misery for millions. I should imagine that the
situation in Korea, from the point of view of the United
Nations, has improved somewhat during the last few months
but I doubt if that has made any difference. I am no expert
on military affairs and I can say nothing more. Summing up
my view of the recent developments, however, I would say,
guardedly and negatively, that the last two or three months
have not brought war any nearer. On the whole, the tension
in the world has relented and the danger of a world war has,
if anything, receded. I do not say that it has disappeared
altogether. On balance, we have gained something and I feel
that this gain should be consolidated. I must remark, in
conclusion, that the United Nations was meant to be an
institution for the preservation of peace and was organized
as such. Paradoxically enough, it is now engaged in meeting
aggression with armed force.

Another curious feature of the situation in Korea is
becoming increasingly evident. A new development is taking
place, a rather remarkable and a disconcerting one. Generals
in the Far East have started making statements of far-
reaching political significance. It seems to me that this
development is fraught with grave consequences for all the
countries concerned. A particular general may be a great
soldier or commander but that does not entitle him to make
excursions into the realm of politics. During the last few
hundred years, in democratic as well as non-democratic
countries, it has been customary for the civil government
of the day to lay down policies and for the commanders in the
field to carry them out. Before policies are formulated, the
views of the commander on the military situation are ascer-
tained but policies are laid down by the governments.
As far as India is concerned, I can say that no commander
in India is going to lay down any policy at any time; it is the

288 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1958

Government of India that will do that.

One hon. Member wanted to know if it was true that
India House did not submit any accounts or papers to the
Ministry in Delhi and that there was a kind of imperium in
imperio. This certainly was news to me but, in order to avoid
a mistake, I referred the matter to my Ministry and was
told that this statement of the hon. Member was very, very
far from being correct. Let me read out the note received
from my Ministry.

“Not only are all the accounts of the High Commis-
sioner’s office audited by the Auditor of the Home Accounts
in London but the final consolidated figures of expenditure
are sent by the auditor to the Accountant General of Central
Revenues here for incorporation in the accounts of the
Central Government. The High Commissioner also sends us
full details of his budget estimates. These are scrutinized and
approved by the Ministry. This latter procedure came into
force from this year.”

My friend, the hon. Dr Mookerjec, also referred to India
House in rather mysterious terms and suggested that some
enquiry be made into its affairs. I am willing, if the need
arises, to institute an enquiry but we have to have a specific
subject for an enquiry. It is true that India House at present
is by far the most expensive of our foreign Missions but then it
is not just another embassy. Within its sphere comes a wide
range of important and miscellaneous activity. We have
inherited some of the duties of the old- India Office. It has
a very large education department which deals with
thousands of Indian students; there also exists another large
section to represent our Army, Navy and Air Force as well
as a supply department and a large medical section besides.
But one must remember that the diplomatic functions are
far heavier in London than in any other Mission abroad.

• Besides, London still continues to be a very highly important
international centre for economic and political reasons. It
is not, therefore, at all helpful if an hon. Member feels
vaguely that something is wrong. I can certainly have any
particular complaint looked into when it is brought to our
notice.

WE WILL NOT COMPROMISE

289

The House is no doubt aware that, among the foreign
countries we have to deal with, Pakistan is the most im-
portant. This is so for a variety of reasons. Apart from being
our next-door neighbour, Pakistan shares her history and
culture with us. Also, the problems in which we arc mutually
involved have, in a manner of speaking, brought us closer
‘ to each other. A large number of people in Pakistan have their
friends and relatives here; similarly, people in India have
friends and relatives in Pakistan. When people come over
from the other side and meet their old friends, they embrace
one another; they forget, for a moment, the new barriers
that have sprung up between them and talk of old times
with nostalgia. In spite of all that has happened, the two
countries are intimately connected. As against all this, it is
also true that grave problems have arisen, during the last
three and a half years, in our relations. These problems were
inevitable consequences of Partition but what happened
after it has made the situation considerably worse. All these
years, we have been struggling to restore normal relations
and although we have made some progress in this direction,
they would certainly admit of improvement. Any problem
bearing on our relations with Pakistan, whether it relates
to East Bengal or the canal waters in the Punjab, has to be
viewed not in isolation but as a part of Indo-Pakistan relations
as a whole. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of fear and
suspicion that vitiates our relations. Speaking on this subject
Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjec expressed the opinion that our
attitude to Pakistan was contradictory. On the one hand,
we talk of coming to terms with Pakistan and have entered
into a trade pact with her which, he said, would only help
Pakistan to become stronger in relation to us. On the other
hand, he pointed out, we have taken a firm stand on Kashmir.
It is true that we do both because both are necessary.
Obviously, we cannot overlook any obstacles to better
relations between the two countries if they exist. Nor can
we go to war because the Kashmir issue remains unsolved.
Though our attitude is logical in a theoretical sense/ it
postulates two antithetical courses of action. Our policy is,
nevertheless, an integral whole. Let me sum it up for you.

290

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

We are convinced that India and Pakistan must, as quickly
as possible, revert to normality in their relations. The two
countries are so situated that it is imperative that the relations
between the two should be the most cordial. Being neigh-
bours, they have a certain identity of economic interests. It
is only when they promote their trade relations arising from
their economic interdependence that their relations can
return to normality. In the meanwhile, we cannot escape
from the problems that detract from improved relations
between Pakistan and us. We try to overcome them, not to
lose hope and give them up as insoluble. Struggling in our
search for agreement, we proceed slowly and patiently.
Sometimes, we make a little progress and are heartened by
it. Only recently we came to a trade agreement with Pakistan.
We did not contract this agreement in a fit of generosity for
Pakistan. Not that it is bad to be generous. On the contrary,
generosity pays in the end provided you are not generous at
somebody’s expense or at the expense of your own country.
1, however, maintain that we were not being generous to
Pakistan. It was in the light of an objective appraisal of the
situation from which, I assure you, all sentiment was divorced
that we decided that a trade pact between the two countries
was bound to be mutually beneficial. We stand to profit as
much from it as Pakistan. I am afraid that some of us in this
House welcome any opportunity to injure the interests of
the other party but we should bear in mind the possibility
that the harm might recoil on us. The trade pact was thus
considered not only an objectively desirable step but also
as one which would help in securing some normality in our
relations. There are a number of outstanding disputes, such
as the ones relating to the canal waters and evacuee
property. The House is aware that we have made several
attempts to resolve them but 1 shall not go into them at
present.

Mr Bakar Ali Mirza said that he deeply regretted the
partition of India. So do all of us. Nevertheless, I think we
all realize that, however regrettable Partition was and
however grave its consequences, the fact remains that we had
agreed to it. Any attempt to go back on it is bound to prove

WE WILL NOT COMPROMISE

291

utterly impractical. And to wish to do so seems to me merely
sentimental.

Finally, I should like to say a few words about the
Kashmir issue. Normally, I would not have said much about
it because the issue is, at the moment, being considered
by the Security Council. In fact, I believe it is coming up for
discussion tomorrow at Lake Success. I should, however,
like to clear a few doubts which exist, not in the minds of hon.
Members in the House but in the minds of people outside it.
More than one hon. Member have suggested that the issue
be withdrawn from the Security Council. This reaction is,
perhaps, understandable in the circumstances. In the first
place, I am not quite sure if it can be at all withdrawn.
Secondly, this could entail the reorientation of our basic
policy towards the United Nations Organization. This is
not a small matter. From the very outset, we have reposed
our faith in the UNO, not because we considered it a perfect
organization but because we thought it was a step in the
right direction, because we felt its objectives were right. The
mistakes which it has undoubtedly made cannot, however,
disprove the need for such an organization. I have some-
times been distressed by the thought that the UNO has
moved away from some of the ideals that led to its creation.
Nevertheless, I feel that if the UNO ceased to function today,
it would be a disaster for the world. For the world cannot
afford to do without some such organization. It would be a
wrong thing for any country, in a fit of impatience, to sever
its relation with this Body and weaken it in the process.
There will then be nothing left to fall back upon in inter-
national relations. I believe our attitude to Kashmir has been
characterized as sentimental by people abroad. I wonder
what our critics would say if they read about Pakistan’s
approach in their newspapers. I can assure our critics that
my colleagues in the Government who formulate our policies
are not easily influenced by sentiment. In fact, I have always
found their capacity for cold-blooded reasoning remarkable.
I should also like to remind the critics that, for months after
the raids on Kashmir started, we had the good fortune to have
Gandhi ji with us. Hardly a day passed when I did not

292

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

seek his advice on matters that troubled me. His views on the
Kashmir issue are no secrets, because he expressed them at
his prayer meetings. By no stretch of imagination could his
attitude be described as sentimental. I know his conclusions
were arrived at after close reasoning.

The House will remember that, some time ago, a resolu-
tion jointly sponsored by the U.S. and U.K. delegations was
placed before the Security Council. I must say that it
distressed us to read it for it seemed to us so completely wide
of the mark. How could they ignore so much of what has
happened? How the able representatives of these two great
nations could possibly have sponsored a resolution like this
is beyond me. At the meeting of the Security Council, the
Foreign Minister of Pakistan also spoke at great length and his
charges were incredibly fantastic; it was a surprising per-
formance even for him. I have had something to say about
all this and I do not wish to repeat myself. The resolution,
its approach and the way it has been put forward at this
juncture will endanger the peace of the world. This approach
is wrong and distorted and grossly unfair to India and the
people of Kashmir. Since we did not accept this resolution,
we did not suggest any amendments to it.

In the place of this joint resolution, an amended resolu-
tion has now been placed before the Security Council by the
same sponsors. I agree that, to a certain extent, it is an
improvement on the old one but, basically, it still ignores the
real situation. It also contains certain recommendations
which, as we have all along made clear, we cannot accept.
Further, I must express my regret at the tone and content
of some of the speeches, in particular the one made by the
representative of the United Kingdom. It seems to me that he
has displayed an astonishing ignorance of the entire problem.

Even during the period when the resolution was being
considered by the Security Council, before it and since then,
there has been a continuous and intensive propaganda in
Pakistan for jehad against India. Any talk of settlement seems
to me to be wholly futile in the context of this perpetual
threat of jehad and, to add to that, the wild charges made
against us by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan. The

WE WILL NOT COMPROMISE

29S

atmosphere has to clear up before any friendly talks are
possible. Above all, India desires peace for herself and peace
in the world. Let me, however, remind everyone concerned,
that India is not quite so weak or helpless that she should
submit to insults and the threats of jehad.

From the very beginning it has been our declared wish
that the people of Kashmir should themselves decide their
future. We will continue to adhere to our policy whatever
happens. In pursuance of our policy, we agreed to hold a
plebiscite provided the conditions necessary for its peaceful
conduct were fulfilled. The conditions which we consider
necessary for a plebiscite are contained in the resolutions of
the Security Council of August 1948 and January 1949.
A deliberate attempt is now being made to go back on these
and hence the delay in settlement. We made many important
concessions when we accepted those resolutions. We could
not further compromise on issues which we considered funda-
mental. The substance of the resolutions of 1948 and 1949
and the directives contained therein we considered vital and
still do; we will not compromise on these in order to appease
Pakistan or her sympathizers. Nor can we agree to leave
Kashmir unprotected or ungoverned. We‘ cannot allow any
outside authority, civil or military, to assume charge of its
affairs even temporarily.

The resolution now before the Security Council does not
flow from the resolution of August 1948. It is a new
proposition altogether and the arguments advanced in
support of it by the U.K. and U.S. delegations posit an
entirely new and fantastic theory that Kashmir is a kind
of no-man’s land where sovereignty is yet undetermined.
Neither the United Nations Commission nor the Security
Council have ever advanced such a theory before and, indeed,
they could not because the facts were indisputably clear.
Kashmir is, juridically and politically, an integral part of
India and at no time have the United Nations Commission
or the Security Council challenged this fact. The fact that
Pakistan is guilty of aggression in Kashmir and that, as a
result of this, a certain portion of it has been removed from
our factual control cannot and does not detract from our

20—11 DPD/65

294

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

status and our right in Kashmir. Because of our desire to
secure the conditions of peace and to avoid further blood-
shed, we accepted the Ceace-fire Agreement and chose to
allow the existing military position to continue pending
further negotiations. This has been interpreted not only to
mean that Pakistan has acquired some kind of political right
over the territory now under her control but also that she has
a right to interfere in the other part of Kashmir. We refuse
to accept either of these interpretations. In whatever manner
I look at the case I do not see how Pakistan has any rights
whatsoever.

The accession of Kashmir to India is entirely in
conformity with the Indian Independence Act and the
negotiations that preceded it; it is also fully in accord with
all that has happened in the case of the other Princely States
which acceded to India. Kashmir acceded to India when
she was still a Dominion of the Commonwealth and the
accession was accepted on behalf of the Crown by the then
Governor-General. It is strange that His Majesty’s Govern-
ment should now argue that a Dominion had acted
unconstitutionally; they are really blaming themselves.

The Governrfient of India has been a continuing body
through the changes in India’s constitutional status. When
India became a republic some time after power had been
transferred to Indian hands, the new Government inherited
not only the liabilities and duties of the old Government but
also its assets and its rights. After all, we continued to be a
member of the United Nations without a fresh election.
Similarly, it was as much our right as it was our responsibility
to protect not only the States which had acceded to India but
also those which had not acceded to Pakistan. Thus, even
if Kashmir had not acceded to India, we should have still
been obliged to protect the people of Kashmir against aggres-
sion. Kashmir has at no time been recognized as a sovereign
State under international law. It has always been considered
an integral part of India. Partition made no difference to
our responsibilities in Kashmir as long as it had not acceded
to Pakistan. We did not ask the United Nations to adjudge
the validity of Kashmir’s accession or to determine where

WE WII.L NOT COMPROMISE

'295

sovereignty lay. We did not seek arbitration but we went
to them to complain about aggression by Pakistan which
we thought might jeopardize world peace. Evidently, the
sponsors of the joint resolution suffer from a short memory;
they have even forgotten how the matter came up before the
Security Council and the history of the tragic period that
preceded it. The United Nations took advantage of our
initiative in our referring the matter to them and thus
enlarged the scope of their enquiry. Despite the protests of
the Kashmir Government, we accorded every facility to the
UN Commission only because we did not want to under-
mine the prestige of the United Nations. Until now, neither
the UN Commission nor the Security Council ha' c suggested
that the accession was open to question.

We have always been agreeable to the idea of a peaceful
settlement through mediation. We do not consider arbitra-
ment the right means of solution for a complex problem like
demilitarization. We submit that the proposal for arbitra-
ment is not fair because it ignores the basic facts we have
mentioned.

A great deal of stress has been laid, in the revised resolu-
tion and in the speeches sponsoring it, on the proposal to have
a Constituent Assembly for Kashmir. No mention has,
however, been made of the continuous threat of war that is
hurled at us by Pakistan day after day. We have made it
abundantly clear that the proposal to have Constituent
Assembly in Kashmir does not, in any way, detract from the
authority of the United Nations. It follows naturally and
inevitably from our Constitution. We are merely seeking to
regularize the position in Kashmir so that the authority for
government is derived from the people and not from an
absolute sovereign or from a political party.

I want to repeat that Kashmir is an integral part of India
and is governed, in so far as the subjects on which Kashmir
has acceded to India are concerned, by the Constitution of
India. I hope people will realize that we cannot afford to
upset or violate our Constitution just because of some resolu-
tion that has been placed before the Security Council.

We are always prepared to have the assistance of a

296

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

mediator in order to explore the possibilities of a settlement.
How far such a mediator would be able, at this juncture, to
bring about a solution is a matter for consideration by all those
concerned. I have dwelt at length on the legal and historical
aspects of this case, not because I believe that the strength of
our case is based on barren legal formulas but because I
desire to remind the parties to this dispute and those who
are interested in its solution that we cannot be expected
wilfully to violate our Constitution and our laws which we
hold sacred. I have often had to repeat our case because,
unfortunately, people in this world begin to lose their pers-
pective when they hear untruth told them repeatedly.

WE DECIDE FOR OURSELVES

S ir, I have listened with attention and respect to the speeches
delivered on this Motion. When I was not able to be
present I took the trouble to read the reports of the speeches
made. Many kind words have been said about the President’s
Address and about the work of the Government. Many
critical things have also been said. The President’s Address,
coming as it did from that high office notwithstanding, is
a statement made on behalf of the Government. It represents
in dignified and restrained language the general outlook
and policy of the Government.

As the President said in his Address, we have met under
rather unusual circumstances. This House is not likely to
consider any matter of controversy in the course of this
session. We shall carry on because Governments have to
carry on whatever happens. Therefore, we must cover the
interregnum between this Parliament which is in its last
stages and the new one, now in the process of birth. At such
moments, one tends to look back at what has been done and
at the same time to try and peep through the veil of the future.

Reply to debate on the President’s Address in Parliament, New Delhi,
February 12, 1952

WE DECIDE EOR OURSELVES

297

It is quite natural that references should have been made
to the General Elections. Important as they arc, they do not
touch the problems before the country. As an hon. Member
said, the General Elections have been a tremendous
experience for millions of our people. It is easy to criticize
some of the things that happened during the elections but 1
think it is generally recognized here and abroad that this
gigantic experiment has been a great success. Although the
organization that planned the elections did very good work,
it is really the people of India who carried them through and
who, therefore, deserve our congratulations. Whatever our
personal reactions to the results of the elections 01 o the way
they were conducted, I think we shall be completely justified
in saying that they represented the mind nt India at the time.
It is possible that people gave their votes under some stress or
influence or that a desire to express their displeasure or
pleasure pla) ed some part in the manner of voting. In that
case, their view may change later. Ne\eitheless, the results
of the elections were a fair indication of the forces at work in
India.

These elections can teach us many lessons and if we are
wise we shall learn them and fashion our conduct accordingly.

I do not wish to say much more about the elections.
Many of us feel that the election rules laid down by Parlia-
ment are capable of improvement and that the improvement,
if and when made, will further simplify the election machi-
nery.

Some points brought up by an hon. Member, I think,
are worthy of notice and consideration. For instance, it is
alleged — I am not personally aware of it — that in some places
the ballot boxes could have been opened and tampered with.
If it is true, it is a grave matter and needs to be looked into.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member that, as far as possible,
the counting should be done immediately after the polling
with no gap of time in between. I presume nobody will differ
with this view. These were our first elections and we did not
have enough people with sufficient experience in this matter.
I have no doubt that on the next occasion many of these
defects will be eliminated.

298

JAWAHAR1.AL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

It was also pointed out that it was not very difficult to
remove the symbol from the box. 1 do not wish to say any-
thing to discredit the election machinery, because these are
odd incidents. I know of a case where a clerk was seen
removing a label from one box and trying to put in another.
He was caught by his officer. If it is done once, it will make
no significant difference; but if done oftener it can completely
falsify the voting in that box. All this must be enquired into.

I have referred briefly to the elections but what I really
wanted to say to this House was about the bigger problems
we are facing. Even though this House may not be directly
concerned, the country is facing them and many of us will
have to deal with them in other capacities. The President
referred to foreign affairs and international relations in his
Address. 1 should like to say a few words about them because
there has been a great deal of criticism of our foreign policy
from some quarters in this country. It is true that the criticism
has been on die decline because it is obvious that our foreign
policy has justified itself. We are told that we have no friends
in the world. That is a strange misreading of current
happenings in the rest of the world. I claim that we not only
have friends but that we are friendly with every country and,
what is more, these countries regard us with a certain respect.
It is recognized that we decide for ourselves — sometimes
not rightly in die opinion of other countries— and that we
try to pursue the policy we consider right without outside
interference. I think it would be worth their while, were it
possible for hon. Members, to tour all the countries and
find out for themselves how India stands in the eyes of the
common people of the world.

I feel sure that they will discover that the common people
of the world hold India and India’s policy' in high esteem,
even though sometimes they do not like it or agree with it.
That is no small achievement for a country just entering the
international field. Both internationally and nationally, we
have been through stormy weather and we have tried our
best to keep on an even keel. Perhaps, we have not been
quite as dramatic as people believe we should have been
in our conduct of foreign affairs. Our behaviour as an agita-

WE DECIDE FOR OURSELVES

299

tional party, however justified in its time, would hardly be
suitable in a chancellery, for instance. However, I do not
think our policy has changed in any basic sense, although
adaptations to changing circumstances have been frequent.

Any official statement on the part of the Government is
criticized as being flat and stale. It is said that it has no fire or
force in it. The Address of the President of the great Republic
of India has got to be dignified and restrained. I hope the
Government of India speaks and acts in a dignified and
restrained manner. We must look not at the manner but at
the content of what is said. The President referred to the
upheavals in the Middle East, in North Africa and in Western
Asia and talked of our past and present reactions *o these
happenings. The manner of his address was calm a d digni-
fied. This seems to have led some hon. Members and some
press men to believe that our Government had abandoned
the firm stand it had taken earlier. I would beg the House
not to interpret the absence of fire in the President’s Address
as a sign of change in our policy. At the United Nations, even
the most powerful countries have often to whittle down their
policies, especially when the issue in question is a complicated
one. Let not hon. Members imagine that the Government of
India can sit on a high perch and deliver homilies to the
world. Of course, hon. Members do not want us to threaten
the world with dire consequences if India’s behests are not
carried out but the policy they advocate amounts to that.
That India should take charge of the world is, surely, not
only gross presumption on our part but also inconsistent with
the way responsible governments function. Although there is
so much tension in Asia, Africa and Europe, our relations
with their various countries are cordial in a real sense. That
is no small achievement. Our relations are friendly with those
great countries which on another plane appear to be in
conflict with one another. We have the confidence of these
countries. We respect their confidence even though we do
not always agree with all that they do.

The questions Dr Mookerjee put to the House are
certainly difficult but that is no reason why there should not
be absolute frankness in answering them. Of course, we

JOO JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195$

cannot shout about every governmental activity from the
house-tops. There are secrets which the Government must
keep, especially when other countries are concerned. In
regard to Kashmir, some hon. Members have repeatedly
said, ‘Withdraw this case from the United Nations or the
Security Council’ or ‘If you cannot get it by this means,
adopt other methods’. Let us be clear about what this means.
How does one withdraw a case? Does one simply send a
letter to the United Nations saying, ‘We withdraw our case,
because we have had enough of you’? That would mean
a complete break with the United Nations. Of course, as an
independent country, it is open to us to do that and take the
consequences. We are at the United Nations by voluntary
choice and not merely by the compulsion of events. The
Kashmir issue was bound to be put up before the United
Nations by some other country even if we had not done so.

We respect the United Nations and are all for a world
organization dealing with such matters. It is right that we
should remain a member of the United Nations, even though
things do not always happen according to our wishes. We
have made it perfectly clear that we are not willing to
jeopardize the interests of the people of Kashmir or those of
our own people. Nobody will be allowed to impose anything
dishonourable upon us. We have decided to await the verdict
of the Security Council, however long it may be in coming.
The way of peace is always the better and, in the long run,
the shorter way. The way of war is no way at all, for it solves
nothing. When Dr Mookerjee advises me to “adopt other
methods’’, he obviously talks of war. The hon. Member
surely cannot believe that by adopting an aggressive method
we can solve the problem of Kashmir. His way will solve no
problem whatever. All it will do is to get us into enormous
difficulties. We will cause injury to other people and also
injure ourselves. Everything we have so far stood for will not
only receive a shock but probably suffer for a whole
generation. The consequences are not a small matter. We
have to act and speak in a responsible way when we deal with
a difficult situation.

In a military sense, we are weak compared with the great

WE DECIDE FOR OURSELVES

301

countries of the world. We have a fine Army, a fine Navy and
a small but fine Air Force and I am proud of our defence
Services. I have met the young men in our Army, Navy and
Air Force and I can tell this House that they are a very fine
lot. We have fine human material but we are not essentially
a military power. It becomes increasingly clear that even the
greatest military powers are tired of war. The interminable
truce talks in Korea, for instance, only show that, once these
great Powers get entangled in methods of war, they find it
very difficult to extricate themselves. There seems to be a
realization that armed might affords no adequate solution for
the problems of the world. It only leads to furth' • conflict
and disaster. Therefore, it is hardly wise for u . who are
weak, to talk loosely of “other methods’’ in regard to
Kashmir. At the moment, Kashmir is maxing remarkable
progress, economically, socially and politically. If we were
to rush into a war, we would be putting an end to that
progress and that w T ould also be a breach of our pledge to (he
United Nations. No country likes to be accused before the
world of breaking pledges.

An hon. Member referred to the recent agitation in
Jammu and expressed the opinion that the \ iews of the people
of Jammu should be respected. Their views should certainly
be respected. But their demand for a closei union with India
means a complete break-up of Kashmir. '1 he principle by
which we have stood in regard to Kashmir is that the people
of Jammu and Kashmir would decide their future themselves.
We shall not allow any pow r er to decide it by coercion or war.
If the people of Kashmir as a whole are going to decide it,
it is necessary to give them an opportunity to do so. If a
small group in Kashmir wants to coerce others to decide it
according to their wishes, it is open to them to give expression
to their wishes in the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir.

I know a little about the internal conditions in the
provinces of Jammu and Kashmir. I know of no movement in
India that is so thoroughly misconceived and mischievous as
the one mentioned by the hon. Member. 'I he Praja Parishad
movement in Jammu is completely opposed to the interests
of Kashmir and Jammu and of India and contradicts

302

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

everything we stand for. It amazes me that people apparently
desirous of union with India should work in a way so as to
injure India, injure Kashmir and to give help to and
encourage the enemies of India. There must either be some-
thing wrong with their thinking or they do not mean what
they say.

Since the Kashmir trouble began four years ago, many
changes have taken place in India. They have been due
partly to migrations of population and partly to other
developments. These changes have further complicated the
Kashmir issue. My personal desire is that there should be a
plebiscite in Kashmir provided proper conditions exist for it.
I further think that the Constituent Assembly is entitled to
decide what course should be followed. The elections have
shown which way the trend is. Naturally, this docs not apply
to the part of Kashmir State which is still in the hands of
Pakistan. If the Constituent Assembly comes up against
difficulties in coming to a decision, a plebiscite should be
held as early as possible. I have no doubt about what the
decision of the people will be. I only want to put an end to all
conflicts in a peaceful way so that no bitterness is left behind.

When the Security Council passed the resolution,
according to which Dr Graham was appointed mediator, we
made it perfectly clear that we neither accepted that resolu-
tion nor were bound by it on the ground that it contained
clauses of which we totally disapproved We did not, how-
ever, object to everything that the resolution contained.
We repeatedly said that we did not have the slightest
objection to Dr Graham’s coming to India as a mediator and
that we would gladly treat him as such. We added, however,
that we were not prepared to discuss or act up to the resolu-
tion of the Security Council. We have been consistent in this
matter. When Dr Graham came here, he did not refer to
the Security Council’s resolution even once. As far as he was
concerned, it did not exist. He discussed the various aspects
of the Kashmir issue in the capacity of a mediator and made
suggestions; we agreed with some, pointed out our objections
to others and there the matter ended. He went back and
presented a factual report on Kashmir. Then there were

WE DECIDE FOR OURSELVES

303

further developments and we sent our representatives. In the
course of the discussions that followed, the military advisers
of Dr Graham showed our military advisers a certain plan
which later came to be known as the Dever’s Plan. The plan
represented some kind of an intermediate stage. There was
much in it to which we had no objection. We were prepared
to- discuss it and to suggest improvements. Dr Graham h imself
did not press the plan forward and there was no further
discussion. Long afterwards, a paper was published by the
UN Secretariat containing a much more detailed version of
the Dever’s Plan than we were acquainted with. Naturally,
we referred this matter to our representatives at the United
Nations. They knew nothing about it and so we asked our
representative, Sri B. N. Rau, who happened to be in Delhi
at the time. He had seen only that part of it which was
originally shown to our representatives. That was published
by UNO as an appendix to Dr Graham’s Second Report to
the Security Council and is there for any one to see. When
our Military Adviser, General Thimayya, said that he also
had never seen the later version of the De\er’s Plan, it
became clear to us that the addendum had not been shown
to us. Dr Graham, not being a direct party to these talks, did
not know much about it and might have made a mistake.
Anyhow, this is what happened.

The Security Council has again allotted a definite period
of time to Dr Graham in which he is to continue his talks and
attempt to find a solution. In accordance with our policy of
welcoming any further attempts at a peaceful settlement, we
have no objection to Dr Graham’s coming. It is understand-
able that hon. Members of this House should be irritated at
the prolongation of this business. It must be as annoying to
them as the continuance of the Portuguese and French
possessions in India, which are irritating little footholds
constantly coming in our way. Anyway, our policy in their
case has likewise been one of patience and of peace. Why
should we create trouble for ourselves by trying to expedite
their inevitable withdrawal by other methods?

I should really have liked to draw the attention of this
House to some aspects of constructive activity in the country.

504

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1955

I feel that not enough attention is paid to them. When some-
thing of this kind happens in other countries, the gigantic
machinery of propaganda is set in motion. Everybody talks
of the progress the country is making. In our country, even
though the building is on a much larger scale than in other
countries, our own constructive work comes up for discussion
only when some criticism is made about the amount of money
spent on it. Of course, it is perfectly right that this House
should carefully keep a check on expenditure but I should
also like this House to realize that India is showing magni-
ficent enterprise. We are going ahead with our great river
valley schemes and building industries, such as the great Sindri '
fertilizer factory.

I want to call the attention of the House to the tremen-
dous difficulties and strains under which the building of a
new India is taking place. Consider the Chittaranjan Loco-
motive Works which has expanded greatly and is producing
locomotives. Take the Hindustan aircraft factory and so many
other things. We have built magnificent national laboratories
which are producing very fine results besides laying the
foundations of our future progress. It is a long list but I would
like to acquaint the House and the country with it. Somehow,
our minds seem to concentrate only on negative aspects. We
should certainly be critical but we must also acknowledge
our achievements.

It is said that comparisons are bad — and certainly as
Foreign Minister I do not like to compare my country with
another country — but it would be interesting, were we to
compare the past three or four years in this country with a
similar period in the other countries of Asia as well as Europe
and America. Consider the circumstances in which we have
functioned. There was the aftermath of independence, the
partition and large migrations. Considering all this, what
we have achieved in our foreign policy, our domestic policy
and in laying the foundations of a new political structure
stands comparison with any other country. I do not mean
to say that we are superior to other countries. That kind of
vainglorious approach is wrong. If only we can meet corrup-
tion and black-marketing with the severest measures possible.

THE LARGER SCHEME OF THINGS

S05

you will find that we have done rather well; in fact, much
better than most countries. I think you will come to the
conclusion that we as a parliament, we as a government, we as
a people can hold up our heads high before the world.

THE LARGER SCHEME OF THINGS

S ince yesterday we have been discussing our foreign policy
and many aspects of it have been mentioned. We have
discussed the Foreign Service, the virtues and failings o’ our
diplomatic personnel, the money we spend and the waste we
indulge in or avoid. We have discussed other matters, too.

As I listened to the speeches that were made today, I
became aware of the whole tormented world. When we talk
about foreign policy, after all, it is the world or bits of the
world that we talk about. It seems to me that the world has
hung on the edge of a catastrophe for years. People talk of
the success of our foreign policy. How they measure success
and how they wish to achieve success in Ceylon or Goa, I do
not know. People have said that the policy of our Government
has not yielded success, that it has driven us into this or that
camp and that the problems in Kashmir and elsewhere still
remain unsolved. There has been criticism of our policy but
I have waited in vain these two days for one concrete and
positive suggestion about what can be done in addition to
what is already being done.

• Brave words? yes; forensic eloquence? yes; melodrama?
yes; but* no constructive suggestion! In the world today,
there are problems wherever you go, be it Korea, Iran,
Egypt, Tunisia, America or Germany. And every problem
is an unsolved one, because every problem has to do with the
entire world situation in all its complexity. The world
situation may, of course, take a turn for the better sometimes
but as a whole it presents a very tragic aspect. I do not claim
that our policy has always been successful but I wish this

Speech in reply to debate on Foreign Affairs in the House ol the People,
New Delhi, June 12. 1952

306

JAWAHARI.AL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

House would realize that the present issue concerns some of
the most tremendous problems of the age and is not merely
a matter for debate or eloquence. To have to consider and
face these problems and to decide what is to be done about
them is a tremendous responsibility for any government,
individual or parliament. It would be sheer arrogance for
us to imagine that India, great as she is, can decide the fate
of the world. Of course, not. It may well be, however, that
India’s help in coming to a decision may make a difference
and that difference may come between war and peace. If
we can tilt the balance towards peace, it will be a great
service to the world.

I approach these problems in all humility. Hon. Members
have said that my whims and caprices sometimes fashion our
foreign policy. How they refer to me is of no consequence but
when they refer to the policy of this great nation as the whim
and caprice of an indi\ idual, whoever he might be, it is not
a small matter. Our policy, as I have repeatedly said, has
grown out of our past way of thinking and our declarations
and I do claim that, in so far as we could in the changed
circumstances, we have stuck to those declarations and ways
of thinking. Hon. Members who think otherwise are com-
pletely mistaken. Of course, I cannot judge myself but, as
far as I can see, we have upheld everything we stood for in
the realm of international affairs without the slightest
wavering or deviation.

Of course, I may be wrong; others may be better judges
but I personally feel sure that it is so. I wish to stand behind
everything I have uttered about our remaining in the
Commonwealth and those who express doubts about it do
not understand what they are saying. It amazes me how
some hon. Members of the Opposition with all their elo-
quence and their fine qualities have lost all ability to under-
stand the changed position. They are like religious
fundamentalists who refuse to look right or left and go only
in one direction. The whole world may change but their
mental habits do not. Whether it is morning, noon or night
matters little to them. They continue to repeat the same
slogan, no matter what happens.

THE LARGER SCHEME OF THINGS

S07

Of course, we all want peace. The great nations and the
various power blocs all talk of peace; and yet peace is
considered a dangerous word in some great countries. One’s
loyalty is doubted if one so much as mentions peace. On the
other hand, there are countries where peace is talked of so
aggressively and in such deafening tones that it almost sounds
•like war. After all, peace is a quality, it is a way of approach;
it is a way of doing things; it is an objective we want to reach.
If you prepare for war while you talk of peace, then surely,
there is something wrong with the peace you talk about!
We have plenty of peace conferences nowadays but I doubt
if anything will come of them. Perhaps, some hon. V embers
have seen an advertisement in England: ‘Join th- British
Navy and see the world.’ We might just as well say: Join the
peace movement and have free trips all o\ er the world.’
There are conferences all the time and people are rushing
back and forth, free of charge. I do not know who pays for
them. People travel, go to the ends of the earth and suffer
extreme discomfort, all for the sake of peace. I do not under-
stand this. I do not think it is dignified for people, whatever
their nationality, to rush about at the cost of other countries
and people. Surely, you are not going to have peace by
merely shouting about peace in the market square, knocking
heads and wanting to punish those who differ from you.

Surely, it is necessary for us to function as a mature
nation. We are not children; we are not in a debating society
where we have to match our forensic skill against one another,
regardless of facts and the effect our words are likely to have.
It is very easy to talk against imperialism as some hon.
Members did. I do not deny that imperialism exists but I
would venture to say that imperialism, as it exists today, is
hardly what it was in the past. Let hon. Members understand
what it is. Let them also understand that there are other
imperialisms that are growing. Surely, no one in this House
can say that British imperialism, for instance, is the same
thing that it was in the past. An hon. Member mentioned
Malaya in this connection. British imperialism does flourish
in Malaya, in Africa and elsewhere but British imperialism
today is an exhausted thing. I hope this House has respect for

308

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

the way England has tackled her problems since the war and
the courage with which she has faced them. In many places,
England certainly does things with which neither I nor this
House can agree but that is beside the point. Let us see things
in their historical perspective. As far as power is concerned,
Britain is no longer what she used to be before the last war.
Today, there are, for good or ill, other and greater Powers. I
repeat that since the war years I have nurtured considerable
respect for England, because I like brave people fighting
against odds and the British people have fought against heavy
odds. That does not, however, mean that I agree with
whatever England says or does.

There are still some colonies that belong to certain
Powers. 1 have no doubt that an end should be put to them all,
be they British, French, Dutch, Belgian or any other. The
fact, however, remains that today none of the colonial
powers have any strength behind them. The colonies perhaps
have the strength of tradition and they have been supported
by other powers. But, as I said, they have no inherent strength
now. Let us by all means ptxt an end to what remains of
colonialism in Asia, in Africa and wherever else it exists but
let us understand what the real conflict is about. Conflicting
forces are marshalling themselves and if they come to grips
then the whole world will witness mighty changes and these
changes cannot be for the better, because they will cause
terrible destruction. It does not help in the slightest to repeat
the slogans of yesterday, thinking that they take the place of
thought and action. Ours is a complicated, difficult and
tormented world. We must not approach our problems with
any certitude of success but with a great deal of humility and
try to help where we can. Our aim should be to be helpful,
to do good, or at any rate, to avoid evil.

It is all very well to talk bravely but melodrama does not
become this honourable House. We are the Parliament of
India and have to face great problems; we cannot afford to
adopt melodramatic attitudes and repeat the slogans of the
market place here. We are entrusted with a tremendous res-
ponsibility. I beg this House not to consider our foreign policy
in terms merely of our own petty success or failure because

THE LARGER SCHEME OF THINGS

509

the success or failure of any foreign policy today involves the
success or failure of the whole world. If and when disaster
conies it will affect the world as a whole and, therefore, it
hardly matters what your policy or my policy is. Be that as
it may, our first effort should be to prevent that disaster from
happening. If that proves to be beyond us, we must, at any
rate, try to avoid disaster or to retain a position in which we
shall be able to minimize, as much as possible, the
consequences of disaster, even if it comes.

I want to be perfectly frank with this House. I should like
an ever-increasing number of countries in the world t<- decide
that they will not have another war, whatever happens. I
should like the countries in Asia — I speak about our neigh-
bours — and other countries also to make it dear to those
warring factions and those great count] ics that are so
explosively bitter against each other that they themselves
will remain cool and not enter the arena of warfare whatever
happens and that they will try at least to restrict the area of
conflict, save their own regions and try to save the rest as
best they can. I should also like to declare that we are against
the use of these horrible modern weapons of war and get
other countries to do the same. You have heard of the atom
bomb and of the hydrogen bomb which is yet to come. The
latter is believed to be far worse than the atom bomb. From
the way hon. Members talked about bacteriological warfare
I got the impression that they expect this Government to
rush in everywhere and express its opinions without taking
the trouble to find out exactly what should be said, when it
should be said or how much weight should be attached to
what is said. I am afraid governments do not function in
that way. Governments have to weigh their words and every
bit of evidence on which a statement is based. Governments
cannot condemn people or nations until they are absolutely
convinced that what they say is justified. Governments cannot
even say something on the basis of adequate evidence until
the proper moment comes. I might add, however, that I
think all nations should raise their voices against any form
of bacteriological or germ warfare.

Clearly, it is not an easy matter to check this drift towards

21—11 DTD/6S

S10 JAWAHARI.AL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

catastrophe and disaster. The world is in a ferment of passion
and prejudice and I am certain it will do little good to join
the crowd of excited people who are shouting at the top of
their voices. That will only make things worse. If you are
shouting, it does not matter that it is peace you are shouting
about. Your job is to try and make people less excited
somehow. Your object is not merely to show that you were
right or to prove the strength of your convictions but to gain
ultimate results. For this, it is necessary to calm people down,
to prevent them from fighting and then to set about winning
them over. Even though they are in the wrong, you cannot
win them over if you tell them that they are bad, very bad
and that they should be punished and crushed. I do not mean
that we should not condemn what we feel to be wrong but,
according to what I have been taught about civilized
behaviour, it is far better to know our own weaknesses and
failings than to point out those of others.

I submit that this is my approach to foreign policy. You
may call it neutral or whatever else you like but I, for my
part, fail to see how this approach is neutral. Neutrality as a
policy has little meaning except in times of war. If you think
there is a war on today, we are neutral. If you think there is
a cold war today, we are certainly neutral. We are not going
to participate in a cold war which, I think, is worse than a
shooting war in many ways. A shooting war is, of course, very
disastrous but a cold war is worse in the sense that it is more
degrading. It does not matter who is right and who is wrong
but we shall certainly not join in this exhibition of mutual
abuse.

Many subjects have come up for discussion in the course
of this debate but there are one or two points I would
especially like to put before this House. It has repeatedly been
said that we incline more and more towards the Anglo-
American bloc. It is perfectly true that during the last few
years we have had more economic and other bonds with the
United Kingdom and the United States of America than with
other countries. That is a situation we have inherited and
unless we develop new bonds we shall have to continue as
we are doing. We maintained our old ties with these countries

the larger scheme of things

Sll

because a nation cannot live in isolation. We wanted certain
things that we could not get from elsewhere. In similar
circumstances, any country would have acted as we did.
That some people obsessed by passion and prejudice dis-
approve of our relations with the Anglo-American bloc is
not sufficient reason for us to break any bond which is of
advantage to us.

I cannot deny that there is danger and risk when a
country begins to depend upon another. Whatever the form
it takes, dependence is always bad and one should be on
one’s guard against it. Yet a country placed as India is today,
has inevitably to depend on other countries for ceitain
essential things. We are not industrialized enough to pr oduce
all that we need. We have to depend on other counti’es for
most of the things our Army or our Air Force or our Navy
requires and are, therefore, dependent. However big your
army, it is of little use unless you have the necessary equip-
ment. Of course, we must try to build up basic industries so
that we can produce things for our essential needs but what
are we to do in the meanwhile? We have got to get them
from somewhere and we have tried to get them from those
countries where our existing economic contacts made it
easier for us to do so. It is very difficult for us to build new
channels of trade and commerce overnight. We are perfectly
prepared to explore these possibilities; for instance, we are
perfectly prepared to deal with the Soviet Union or any other
country that can supply us with the particular goods we need.
But the fact remains that at the moments it is simpler and
easier for us to import things from America, England, France
and other countries.

I should like to give you the example of our defence
Services. They have been built up after a certain model and
w T e have, as it were, inherited them. We may or may not
change that model later. It is a satisfactory model as far as it
goes, because our defence Services are efficient and our
Army is good. It is, of course, organized after the British
model. They started it and built it up over a large number
of years. Surely, you do not expect us to break it up and
start afresh. I can understand the argument that our Army

312 JAWAHARI.AI. NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

should come closer to the people. Let us, by all means,
consider it and explore the possibilities; but to wish to break
up a magnificent fighting unit, simply because it irks us that
the British built it, is to my mind extremely childish. We
cannot suddenly disrupt our defence Services. What we can
do is to make the changes we desire gradually. Now, an army
has to have equipment and it is easier for us to continue to
get the kind of equipment we have been using, because
there are sources which can supply it. If we try to invent an
entirely new type of equipment, the arms we are producing
in this country now will be rendered useless and that will
create all kinds of difficulties.

An hon. Member asked why our advisers are British and
not of German or Japanese or some other nationality. Well,
things are being done in a particular way and the most
important thing is that there should be no breakdown in the
organizational machinery of our defence. We cannot have
advisers, who think along different lines, who use different
equipment and different types of ammunition, coming here
and quarrelling amongst themselves while they advise us.
We must follow a single system till we decide to change it.

The House will remember that we attained independence
through co-operation and friendship. I think history will
record that to our credit and, I am not ashamed to say, to
England’s credit, too. Having achieved our goal we went
forward step by step. The House will remember that for the
first two years while we were framing our Constitution, we
were a Dominion. However, on the very first day our
Constituent Assembly met, we declared that our object was
to become a republic. That was in the December of 1946.
As soon as our Constitution was completed and given effect
to, we became the Republic of India. Later, the question of
whether or not we should be in the Commonwealth came
up. The Republic of India has nothing to do with England
constitutionally or legally. Of course, there are the normal
bonds that exist between two countries that have had mutual
dealings in the economic or cultural sphere. If we decide to
remain associated with England or with a particular group
of nations, there is no harm, provided no binding factor

THE LARGER SCHEME OF THINGS SIS

or inhibition accompanies that association. Dr Mookerjee,
who was himself in the Cabinet when these questions were
considered, said that the time had come for us to leave the
Commonwealth. I should like him to point out in what way
the fact of our being associated with the Commonwealth has
affected or diverted our policy during the last three or four
years'. I 'do not think our membership of the Commonwealth
has affected our policy in the slightest. To insist that it has,
therefore, amounts, so far as 1 am concerned, to acting in a
huff. Nations must act with dignity and strength, adopt what
they consider the right course and adhere to it. It is open to
us to be associated in an alliance with any country. We ‘uve
avoided alliances which might entangle us. Dr I anka
Sundaram referred to a number of treaties of friendship which
we had concluded and to some minor differences in their
phraseology. 1 hope hon. Members will excuse me if I do not
go into these trivial points, because they have no importance
whatsoever. So far as we are concerned, we arc prepared to
enter into a treaty of friendship with every country in the
world. In an alliance, one invariably takes something and
gives something in return. Each country binds itself down to
a certain extent and relinquishes its freedom of action to the
extent to which it commits itself in the alliance or agreement.
An alliance, nevertheless, need not stand in the way of the
independence of a country.

Our association with the Commonwealth is remarkable
in that it does not bind us down in any way whatsoever and,
if I may repeat, it has not done so during the last two or
three years either. It has given us certain advantages without
our having to accept any liabilities in return. I know that
some hon. Members do not like the idea of our being in the
Commonwealth. Their dislike is regrettable and I cannot
help it, since we are concerned only with the advantages our
country gains. Now, Ceylon and South Africa are both
members of the Commonwealth and we may well be asked
why we put up with what is happening in these countries.
If any hon. Members want us to withdraw from the
Commonwealth on principle, my answer would be that
what they object to is precisely the reason why we should

S14

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1955

remain in the Commonwealth. I shall explain what I mean.
By doing so, we have better chances of being able to influence
the larger policies of the Commonwealth than we otherwise
would. Being in the Commonwealth means a meeting once
or twice a year and occasional consultations and references.
Surely, that is not too great a price to pay for the advantages
we get. If the Commonwealth had the right to interfere with
any constituent country, then I should certainly cease to be
in the Commonwealth. If any hon. Members think that the
nations of the Commonwealth have common war or defence
policies, allow me to assure them that they arc completely
mistaken. We have never discussed defence policies in the
Commonwealth, either jointly or separately.

Since an hon. Member asked why our Commander-in-
Chief should have had to go to London, I shall repeat that
our Army is built on the British model. We have a very big
department in London for military stores. We have to main-
tain it because we need the type of things it supplies; we have
sometimes to get them through the good offices of the British
War Office. Our Commander-in-Chicf has, therefore, to go
there in order to look into these things. It is not the business
of our commanders to discuss policies; that is left to the
Ministers. The fact is that we have inherited certain ways
from the British. We can decide cither to reject them or to
accept them. We have rejected many; we have also decided
to keep many till we are able to change them if we so desire.

Now, one of the things we have inherited and to the use
of which hon. Members opposite have not objected is the
English language. There has been no word of protest from
the Opposition against the use of the English language and
that, if 1 may say so, is also a sign of the mental subservience
about which we are reminded so often. I have no doubt that
it is the English language more than anything else that ties
us to the Anglo-American bloc and yet I have not heard it
cited as a reason for our so-called subservience to the Anglo-
American bloc. It brings us nearer to their thoughts, their
activities, their books, newspapers, cultural standards and
so on, whereas we are cut off from those parts of the world
with which we have no linguistic ties. I should like our

THE LARGER SCHEME OF THINGS

315

country to know the other languages of the world besides
developing their own so that we may grow and come in
contact with more people of the world. It is strange that
some hon. Members should object even to the things that are
advantageous to us, simply because they happen to emanate
from America or England or some other country in the
West, while they accept, without any protest whatsoever, the
English language which is our greatest bond with the Anglo-
American bloc. I certainly do not have any objection to the
use of the English language and am not saying anything
against it. My argument is that it is not sensible deliberately
to lose a good thing just because we have inherited it from the
British. It is true that we have decided ultimately to use our
own language in the country and we shall make die change
gradually. I hope English will remain even aftci that, not as
an official language but because it is a great language. I hope
the other languages of the world will also be introduced in
India but the relevant thing at this moment i» that, if we
adopt an attitude of suspicion towards everything that comes
from England or America, it will not help anybody.

We have often expressed ourselves in a way that
displeased the great nations and filled them with anger; but
we have preferred that to changing our policy. Recent history
will testify as to how readily some great nations have shifted
their allegiance and how they have had alliances; enemies
have come together as allies and then become enemies again.
In the last World War, the Soviet Union was allied to Nazi
Germany; it was later attacked by Nazi Germany and it
fought Hitler’s armies with enormous endurance and
courage. I am not condemning any country; I am merely
pointing out that, at that time, the rulers of the Soviet Union
thought it right and desirable to have a close alliance with a
country which they had condemned earlier and with which
they were to fight to the death later.

I believe all of us are liable to error and I rebel against
the notion that an organization or idea or country can be
infallible. Such a belief may )ield temporary results but
ultimately it is fatal to the growth of a nation; it curbs the
mind and spirit and stunts the community. Therefore, it is

S16 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

folly to judge the present day difficulties of the world with
the assumption that a country is either completely right or
completely wrong. We must consider each point separately
and refrain from the vilification of any country, because it
does not help. When the situation demands it, let us by all
means point out that a policy is wrong or that something else
should be done; but merely slandering other countries will
not create the peaceful atmosphere we desire.

1 submit again that, so far as our policy is concerned, in
spite of the fact that we deal largely with the United Kingdom
and the U.S.A., — wc buy our things from them and we have
accepted help from them — we have not swerved at all from
our policy of non-alignment with any group. We stuck to
our policy even though wc had to deny ourselves the offered
help. That is why other countries realize that we cannot be
bought by money. It was then that help came to us and we
gladly accepted it; we shall continue to accept help provided
there are no strings attached to it and provided our policy
is perfectly clear and above board and is not affected by the
help we accept. I realize — I frankly admit — that there are
always certain risks involved. There may be no apparent
risk but our sense of obligation might affect our policy
without our knowing it. All I can say is that we should remain
wide awake and try to pursue our policy consistently and
honestly. If the Government makes a mistake, this House,
I am sure, will demand an explanation.

There have been times when one word from us would
have brought us many of the good things of life. We preferred
not to give that word. Not a few individuals but millions in
this country. If at any time help from abroad depends upon
a variation, howsoever slight, in our policy, we shall relin-
quish that help completely and prefer starvation and
privation to taking such help; and, I think, the world knows
it well enough.

Dr Lanka Sundaram asked tvhether the Standing
Committee of the Ministry of External Affairs was going to
be constituted. Well, Standing Committees were constituted
in the old British days in a peculiar way and for a special
purpose. They serve no useful purpose now. Therefore, I do

THE LARGER SCHEME OF THINGS

S17

not know if one will be appointed. That is a matter for the
House to decide. I should like, however, to assure this House
and, specially the Opposition, that as Minister for Foreign
Affairs I shall welcome consultations with them about any
matter pertaining to foreign affairs.

We have associated ourselves with the United Nations.
This association does not deprive us of our independence.
Of course, it limits our freedom in the sense in which it limits
the freedom of every member country. That some limit
should be placed on your field of action is the natural conse-
quence of joining an organization of that nature. Our
membership of the United Nations is a fai greater limitation
than our association with the Commonwealth of Nations.
In fact, the latter is almost an airy association, because it
is not written down on paper or in any constitut.on or
anywhere else; so long as we wish to be there, we can remain
there.

To come back to the United Nations, *vc associated
ourselves with the United Nations because wc felt that some
such world organization was very essential. The League of
Nations had failed. The UNO seemed to be a similar attempt
under wider and perhaps better auspices and so we joined it.
I still think that the Charter of the United Nations is a very
fine and noble document. An lion. Member said, “Go and
scrap the Charter.’’ I do not understand what he meant.
I think the Charter is a very fine thing but it is true that the
world is not living up to it. I feel more and more that the
United Nations has somehow swerved from the basic provi-
sions of that Charter, in theory as well as in practice.
I think that is a very serious matter for us and for other
countries.

The Atlantic Pact is between certain Western Atlantic
countries. What other countries do for their defence is not
my concern. As a government, we do not come into the
picture; nor can we object to anything that they do. One
thing about the Atlantic Pact, however, has become more
and more evident. It began as a pact for defence against
aggression but it has apparently widened its scope and taken
upon itself the defence of the colonial possessions of the

S18

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

nations concerned. That, so far as we are concerned, is a very
serious matter. It means that certain countries must give
assurances, whether formal or informal, that they will protect
and maintain colonial rule wherever it exists. We are, as
you know, unalterably opposed to colonial rule wherever it
exists.

So, I wish to point out to the hon. Members of this
House that we have taken as serious a view of this as we did
of the Security Council’s refusal to discuss the Tunisian
question. Apart from the merits of the Tunisian question
itself, which should, in any case, be settled, nearly every
country in Asia and many countries in Africa are wanting a
consideration of the Tunisian issue. This is being denied,
because two powerful countries have voted against it. That
is a very extraordinary state of affairs. If Asia and Africa
together cannot get a subject discussed in the Security
Council, because two or three great Powers object to it,
then a time may come when the countries of Asia and Africa
may feel that they are better off outside than at the United
Nations. That would, indeed, be tragic because I do feel that,
in spite of its faults, the United Nations serves an essential
purpose. If it did not exist today, undoubtedly, all the
countries would come together to build up something like
it again. I do not want that to happen. I attach the greatest
importance to the United Nations but I must repeat that the
United Nations has swerved from its original moorings and
gradually become a protector of colonialism in an indirect
way. This is a dangerous deviation. Instead of looking upon
it as a great organization for peace, some of its members
have gradually begun to think of it as an organization
through which war can be waged. The original idea behind
the formation of the United Nations was vastly different and.
though the old Charter remains, somehow facts begin to
belie it more and more. We have ventured to point this out
to the member countries of the United Nations and I think
that our words have had some effect.

We are a responsible Government dealing with other
Governments and if we shout about our opinions in public
the effect of our approach is lost. That is not the way modern

THE LARGER SCHEME OF THINGS

S19

diplomacy is carried on. Because we do not shout, the
hon. Members opposite must not think that we arc supine.

Hon. Members have referred to the fact that the Union
Jack was hoisted over the Parliament building some days
ago. Some two or three years ago, this matter was discussed
and we decided that as a matter of courtesy, we would
ailow the Union Jack to be hoisted over one of our important
official buildings on a certain day in the year. This decision
was not the result of a request but simply a matter of courtesy.
At that time, there was no question of flying the flag on
Parliament House, since Parliament was not sitting. I must
confess that when I saw the flag on Parliament House, ' was
myself a little surprised because I had expected it to be on
the Secretariat building instead. It seems that the instruc-
tions given two years ago were not properly understood by
the person in charge and hence the mistake. While it is
perfectly right for us to show courtesy, I do feel that no flag
but the Indian flag should be flown over Parliament House
and instructions have been issued to that effect.

I should also like to say one word about the situation in
Korea. 1 am not, at the moment, referring to the truce
negotiations which have gone on for such a long time, al-
though they arc exceedingly important and one might say
that the future, not only of the Far East but of the world,
depends on what turn these negotiations take. It is, indeed,
a pity that we should be stuck there month after month and
year after year. So far as we are concerned, we are not com-
pletel) out of the picture, because we have tried to keep
in touch with the major parties in the dispute. We had
special opportunities of doing so. We interested ourselves
in this affair in the hope that some way of bringing about
peace might, perhaps, be found. I must say, however, that I
hate been deeply concerned at certain internal developments
in South Korea. We have nothing to do with South Korea.
We have never recognized the Government of South Korea
and it is not our concern. Nevertheless, because we arc
members of the United Nations and the United Nations is
functioning in South Korea, what happens there is a matter
of concern to us. The recent developments connected with

320

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

the activities of President Syngman Rhee are not only very
remarkable but, I think, should make the United Nations and
every country connected with it think of the undesirability
of any kind of association with a person like President Rhee.
To support the regime of President Rhee is to support the
very things which the United Nations is supposed to stand
against.

DEFINING FOREIGN POLICY

T must first of all apologize to this House for not being able to
attend this debate in person. We, in the Government, have
sometimes to attend to the business of two Houses and when
something is before the two Houses simultaneously, it adds to
the difficulty. I have tried, with the help of my colleague
here, to keep in touch with the trend of the debate and have
read reports of some of the speeches made here. Both here and
in the other House, it is my business and duty to listen very
carefully to the criticism that is made and to the suggestions
that are offered. It is my desire to learn from them and to
accept them where possible.

The public and sometimes the press have criticized the
President’s Address as a mere repetition of the policies of the
Government. The President is not going to launch a new
policy in the country and, therefore, his address is bound to
be a repetition of our policy. It gives or purports to give a
broad survey of foreign and domestic affairs and does so in
language that becomes him as the head of the State.

Every government should have an integrated outlook
consistent with its foreign and domestic policy. However, it
is not particularly easy to have an integrated outlook because
many unknown factors have to be dealt with. We are not in
charge of the world and the other countries do not necessarily
carry out our dictates or follow our wishes. We have to take

Speech during debate on the President's Address in the Council of States
New Delhi, February 16, 1953

Returning to Gangtok in Sikkim ajter a
ride on the India-Tibet road , May 1952

lnauf’uraliwi th diigmz of a canal al
Hajalpw m lllai Piadish, Ipril 1951

DEFINING FOREIGN POLICY

321

things as they are and they are, I assure you, in a very
difficult state. Vast changes are taking place; the whole
world is in turmoil. Some countries are actually engaged in
war; the rest live in constant fear of war and suffer the havoc
fear brings with it. Enormous technological changes take
place, from day to day although they do not always come to
our notice. The entire economic and social structure of the
world is being changed by them. They change the structure
of society and the thinking of man. Therefore, it may be that
a policy which was good for us yesterday is not good today.
A policy which was idealistic and advanced in the 19th
century may be out of date today. All of us have been heiled
suddenly into the middle of the 20th centurv. irrespective
of whether we wished it or not; but our minds lag beh>nd in
the remote past. Even economic and social problems are
discussed in terms of the past, although the enormous changes
that have taken place as a result of the last two great World
Wars are obvious enough. At the end of the last war, we saw
two mighty giants rise among the nations — the United
States of America and the Soviet Union. Other countries
are far behind them in terms of power and technological
growth. This situation has upset all the old balances. There-
fore, all theories and policies based on the old balances are
of little use today. Yet, I find people still talking in old terms
without realizing or appreciating that nothing in the world
of today can remain static.

The situation in the Far East is also completely different
from what it was in the past. I merely mention this to point
out to you that we must be alert about the changing condi-
tions. It is true that we must have principles; we must have
ideals and objectives. But that is not enough. The application,
the implementation and the working of our principles and
ideals depend, to a large extent, on external circumstances.
Those circumstances are hardly ever wholly in our control.
We have to accept things as they are.

I have no doubt that every one here would like to build a
new world according to his heart’s desire. Similarly, we also
aim to go in a particular direction but it is not always pos-
sible, because we cannot ignore certain factors, much less in

922

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

a democratic society. Of course, rapid changes consistent
with the aims of a government can be brought about in a
country even though the wishes of considerable numbers of
people have to be disregarded; but such a thing is conceivable
only in a particular type of political and economic set-up
where one group wields supreme power. We, for instance,
cannot ignore large groups. Sometimes the majority has its
way, as it should. When hon. Members accuse us of com-
placency — even of smugness — I feel that they have little
understanding of how my mind or that of my colleagues
functions. Even if we were so foolish as to be complacent, the
circumstances we have to face every day make it impossible
for those of us who are in responsible positions to be
complacent.

I cannot speak for those who are responsible for the
government of other countries but I can certainly speak for
my colleagues and for myself. I want to tell you that we
approach our problems in all humility of spirit and with
feelings utterly devoid of complacency and smugness. We
feel that, however small we might be as men, our problems,
those of our country and those of the world, are big. We
must approach them with all the wisdom we possess and with
such experience as we have. Although we have to advance
step by step, we must constantly be on the alert so that we
can change our step wherever necessary. We must always
take counsel with others and never forget to maintain our
spirit of humility.

I am anxious to seek help and guidance in every impor-
tant matter that comes up before this House. Apart from such
knowledge as we may have of world history, most of us have
been conditioned by India’s national movement and have a
common background of thought and a common approach to
problems. Many of us, thus conditioned, subsequently took
different paths and they were entitled to do this. It was not
necessary that all of us should have thought alike. Our
understanding of problems — ours as well as those of the
world — is necessarily influenced by our background which
we have to adapt to new conditions as they develop. Having
once been part of the nationalist movement, we cannot

DEFINING FOREIGN POLICY

S2S

possibly think of functioning negatively. Of course, negation
inevitably had its place during our fight for freedom but now
that we are building India anew, it is imperative that we
function positively.

Hon. Members of the Opposition will realize that positive
functioning is more difficult because one wrong move can
expose the country to danger. Independence has meant
added responsibility. Besides our own, we have to try and
help solve the problems of the world. Not that we wanted to
interfere with the affairs of other countries but in the present
circumstances it cannot be avoided. A multitude of political,
economic and social issues demand consideration in inir
own country. Large numbers of these problems had been
overlooked for generations but when foreign rule was
removed, new problems were added to the old ones and we
are supposed to solve the whole lot of them at once. I want
you to remember that it is not possible to consider our
troubles in a vacuum; nor is it easy to decide what is right
and what is wrong; e\en more difficult is the pi oper appli-
cation of what one considers right in principle. In order to
do that one must have full control over the situation in the
country, if not, indeed, in the world.

Our foreign policy has been ci incized from various points
of view. The most common criticism is that it is not a policy
at all because it is too vague. Some hon. Members believe
that we are tied up with the Anglo-American bloc because
we expect help from it. Others talk fiequently of building up
a ‘third force’ or ‘third bloc’. An hon. Member wants us — he
says so — to align ourselves with the rival bloc. It is not that
he is against an alignment as such but he would rather that
we had ties with the other bloc. According to the general
consensus of opinion in this country, we should follow a
policy independent of this or that bloc. You may, of course,
sympathize with one or the other; that is quite another thing.
To become part of a power bloc means giving up the right
to have a policy of our own and following that of somebody
else. Surely, that is not the kind of future any self-respecting
person would like to envisage for our great country. I am
not saying that we should not co-operate with others or

324 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

consult them but at the same time we must follow an inde-
pendent policy. It is perfectly true that no country can
function in a vacuum. To achieve anything, it has to take the
rest of the world into account and then decide upon its
course of action. Although our foreign policy is a continuation
of the stand we took during our struggle for independence,
we are, sometimes, constrained tp vary it according to
circumstances.

A country’s foreign policy is really a collection of different
policies, though they have a common basic outlook. When
we deal with America or England or Russia or Japan or
China or Egypt or Indonesia, we have to deal with the
peculiar circumstances that obtain in the country’ concerned
as well as with those in each of the rest. No single broad rule
can apply in every case, because the nature of our relation-
ship varies with each country. The only rule we can lay down
is that we shall try to be friendly with all the countries.

Finally a foreign policy is not just a declaration of fine
principles; nor is it a directive to tell the world how to behave.
It is conditioned and controlled by a country’s own strength.
If the policy does not take the capacity of the country’ into
account, it cannot be followed up. If a country’ talks bigger
than it is, it brings little credit to itself. It is easy for you or
me to lay down beautiful maxims; but if that is done by a
government or nations, it would probably come to nothing.
In any case, what do we achieve except the satisfaction of
having made fine speeches?

The strength which limits or, at any rate, conditions the
foreign policy of a country may be military, financial or, if
I may use the word, moral. It is obvious that India has
neither military nor financial strength. Furthermore, we
have no desire to — and we cannot — impose our will on
others. We are, however, anxious to prevent catastrophes
■and, where possible, to help in the general progress of
humanity. We do express our opinion and work for our goals
with the limited strength that we have but if we adopt a
policy which we arc not in a position to implement, we
would be discredited ourselves in the eyes of other nations
and be dubbed irresponsible. It is difficult for me to praise

DEFINING FOREIGN POLICY

S2S

or even defend the foreign policy we are pursuing, for I have
had a great deal to do with it. I hope I am not being vain
when I say that our policy has, indeed, secured us the
friendship of a large number of countries. I am confident
that today there is no country which is actually hostile to us.
Naturally, some countries are more friendly than others but
those who are occasionally critical of us do not harbour any
permanent resentment against us. We owe this to the policy
we are pursuing and the manner in which we are pursuing
it. We have tried not to join in the new diplomatic game of
maligning, defaming and cursing other countries. That
does not necessarily mean that we agree with what they say
or do; we may not agree but merely shouting against them
does not help, apart from the fact that it is indecorous, too.
Wc have to deal not only with political and economic consi-
derations but also with a large number of imponderables
like fear, for instance. It is alarming to see fear gripping
some of the largest and most powerful countric s in the world.
It is heartening — and I think it is true — that although we
cannot be compared with the great countries of the world
in terms of power, yet, if I may say so, we as a people, are
less influenced by the fear psychosis. Of course, some people
may attribute this to our ignorance of the facts. Facts
certainly have to be reckoned with; but imponderable things
also come in the way of humanity and, if we are to deal with
them effectively, the least we can do is to adopt a manner
that would help rather than hinder. That is to say, we must
refrain from merely running down other countries. We can
certainly express our opinion when it is necessary; we can say
that we do not agree with a country or that certain things are,
in our opinion, wrong; but we must not go farther than that.

Mention has been made of a ‘third force*. I have not
been able to understand quite what it means. If by the term is
meant a power bloc, military or other, I am afraid I do not
consider it desirable, apart from the fact that it is not feasible
either. The biggest countries today are small compared with
the two giants. It would be absurd for a number of countries
in Asia to come together and call themselves a third force or
a third power in a military sense. It may, however, have a

22—11 DPD/65

S26

JAWAHARLAI. NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

meaning in another sense. Instead of calling it a third force
or a third bloc, it can be called a third area, an area which —
let us put negatively first — does not want war, works for
peace in a positive way and believes in co-operation. I
should like my country to work for that. Indeed, we have
tried to do so but the idea of a third bloc or a third force
inevitably hinders our work. It frightens people, especially
those we wish to approach. Those countries, who do not
want to align themselves with either of the two powerful
blocs and who are willing to work for the cause of peace,
should by all means come together; and we, on our part,
should do all we can to make this possible. That is our general
policy and I think we should follow it without too much of
shouting. I am not afraid of shouting but we want to achieve
certain things and shouting may embarrass the countries we
have to approach.

The Far Eastern problem is on the agenda of UNO and
is due for discussion at its next session. I cannot say now
what our representatives may have to do then, because so
much depends on the circumstances which may develop in
the course of the next two weeks or so. All I can say is that
they will broadly try to follow the policy we are pursuing.
What I wanted was to refer briefly to the Korean Resolution
which we sponsored at the United Nations. Ever since the
Korean war started, we have been very much concerned
with it, not because we wanted to interfere or bully others
but because we were perhaps in a position to help more than
any other country could. Our relations with the countries
in conflict were cordial. This was not true of other countries
and, therefore, it was difficult for them to do anything. We
realized our peculiar responsibility to the poor people of
Korea and strongly felt that the utter ruin and destruction
in Korea should be stopped at any cost.

I do not want to go into past history; but several steps
were taken by us which did not yield immediate results but
which, it was subsequently realized, were the right step$.
The very first thing that strikes us about the situation in die
Far East and about which we are all agreed is that it is unreal
and that unless we deal with that great country, China, we

DEFINING FOREIGN POLICY

327

can do nothing effective. We, therefore, recognized the
People’s Republic of China right from the beginning and
urged other countries in UNO and elsewhere to do the same
regardless of whether or not they liked the policies of China.
The fact of China is patent enough and not to recognize it
was and is a fundamental breach — I do not know if ‘breach’
is the right word — and contrary to the very spirit and charter
of the United Nations. Nobody can say the UNO was supposed
only to represent countries subscribing to one policy. That,
unfortunately, is the trend that has gradually come to exist
at UNO. The result is that a country as tremendous as China
has been treated as though it did not exist and a small island
off the coast of China is accepted as representing China. I hat
is very extraordinary. My contention is that this fact 's the
crux of the situation that has developed in the Fat East. The
non-recognition of realities naturally leads to artificial policies
and programmes and that is exactly what is happening.

We had been in continuous touch with the Governments
of China, the U.K. and the U.S.A. as well as those of other
countries a few months before we sponsored the Korean
Resolution at UNO. We were very anxious not to take any
step which would embarrass us or some other party because
that would only have made it more difficult for us to help.
Occasionally we informed one party about the general out-
look and point of view of another. We were in a position
to do this because the heads of our missions abroad made
it a point to keep in touch with the countries they were
accredited to. That is why we were able to frame our resolu-
tion largely in accordance with the Chinese viewpoint as we
thought it to be. I do not say it was a hundred per cent
representative of the Chinese viewpoint but it was certainly
an attempt to represent it. The burden of it was that in the
matter of the exchange of prisoners, the Geneva Convention
should be followed.

Let me not be understood to mean that we were
committed to the statements made by our representatives to
those of China. We only tried to find out how China would
like things to be done. It is, of course, not possible for a party,
however big, to have its own way in every respect and we did

S28 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

not overlook this aspect of the problem when we framed our
resolution.

Now, another factor to be borne in mind is that this
resolution dealt only with the problem of exchange of
prisoners. Those who want to know why it did not deal with
the question of a ceasefire forget the facts of the case. All of
us know that truce negotiations were being carried on at
Panmunjon for a year and a half before this. After great
difficulty an agreement was arrived at in every matter except
that of the exchange of prisoners. Obviously, the primary
aim of the truce negotiations was a ceasefire and that was the
first consequence of an agreement. Therefore, we took up
only the still unsettled question of exchange of prisoners,
subject to the settlement of which a ceasefire had already
been agreed upon. The principles which governed the resolu-
tion had been drawn up in great detail before it was actually
framed. Those principles were communicated to the People’s
Government of China for their opinion early last November.
A fortnight passed — I am speaking from memory about the
period — and we were told that our communication was being
carefully considered. I might say that on many occasions we
had been encouraged by various Governments, including
the Chinese Government, to persevere in our endeavours for
peace. It was not our desire to thrust ourselves where we
were not wanted. It is true that the Chinese Government had
not committed itself to co-operating with us but it had not
refused to do so either and we felt that we might safely go
ahead. It may have been a wrong decision but we made
considerable progress and things were developing. There
was no great difference between the principles we had drawn
up and the final resolution. Anyhow, we sent the latter to the
parties concerned and a few days elapsed — I forget how many
— before we actually proposed the resolution. As the House
will remember, the first reaction to it was one of disapproval
and an immediate rejection on the part of the United States
Government. Till then we had no idea what the reaction of
the Chinese and Soviet Governments would be. They, at
length, informed us that they did not approve of it. Naturally,
we were greatly disappointed. What were we to do then?

DEFINING FOREIGN POLICY

S29

Some people are of the opinion that we should have with-
drawn the resolution at that stage. It is true that the mere
passing of a resolution has little meaning when the aim is an
agreed settlement. We realized that; but, on the other hand,
there were not many alternatives. Before we put our
resolution to UNO there were a number of others, all of
which were, if I may say so, aggressive and would certainly
have made the situation much w’orse. We did not approve of
them and would have voted against them had the occasion
presented itself. A resolution proposed by the Soviet Union or
by some other country of Eastern Europe laid stress on the
importance of an immediate ceasefire. We should have wel-
comed a ceasefire but it was absolutely clear that the lesolu-
tion would not be passed. Many countries felt that if the
issue of prisoners could not be resolved after a whole year’s
argument, in spite of the presence of a war, it would never
be resolved even if a ceasefire took place. Therefore, they
preferred to continue negotiations till all the issues could be
decided once and for all to the satisfaction of all parties
concerned. This was the difficulty so far as our resolution was
concerned. Furthermore, it has been very largely support-
ed but some of the principal parties concerned unfortunately
did not agree to it. As a matter of fact, the resolution was not
ours but one that had been sponsored by the House. We
had to adopt a realistic course but we did not know whether
or not we should withdraw the resolution and let matters
drift. The resolution, however, was not a mandate but in the
nature of a proposal and we thought it might possibly help in
the further consideration of the subject.

May I say one other thing in this connection? I under-
stand that some Members have disapproved of our action in
sending a medical unit to Korea. We sent this unit to Korea
purely for medical relief work and, I must say, it has done re-
markably well, gaining for itself, in addition, some very
valuable experience. Of its kind, it is one of the best units in
the world today. It did not take part in the fighting because,
though we are prepared to give medical succour, we have
nothing to do with the war as such.

I am afraid I have taken a long time over this matter

330 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU S SPEECHES 1949-1953

and I should like to pass on to another subject. I am told diat
my £riend, Acharya Narendra Dev, whose opinion I value
very greatly, expressed himself in despondent tones about the
economic situation in the country and said that the Five
Year Plan was not likely to succeed.

It is not easy to take an overall view of the economic
situation in the country and sum it up in a few sentences.
None of us can take a complacent view of it but the point is
how to overcome our difficulties in regard to food, land,
industry and, ultimately better production and better
distribution. All this was considered at great length when the
Five Year Plan was formulated.

The main virtue of the Five Year Plan is that we have
come to grips with our problems for the first time. Theoretical
approaches have their place and are, I suppose, essential but a
theory must be tempered with reality. In this instance, we
have to realize that we cannot go far beyond our resources.
And 1 think that in the Five Year Plan we have come to
realistic conclusions, not forgetting our objectives. I should
like the pace at which we are making progress to increase and,
indeed; I shall be very happy if hon. Members would suggest
practical measures to achieve this end.

I believe that the food situation has improved consider-
ably and I am sure that, of the various factors responsible.
Government policy is certainly one. People refer to the famine
or near-famine conditions that prevailed in Rayalaseema last
year and do in parts of Karnataka and Bombay State this
year. They are right. I would, however, like the House to
remember that though we use the word ‘famine’ today — I do
not like using the word — we do so in an entirely different
sense than we did in the old days when the British were
here. Then, a famine meant millions of people dying like
flies. Whereas, if a person dies of hunger or from other causes
today, there is an outcry of protest. There is, at the present
moment, a new political consciousness and I am very glad
about it. In the Bengal famine of 1942-43, 35 lakhs of people
died. And I do suggest that the situation is vastly different
now. I mention this because a foreign visitor went to the
famine areas the othei day. He said: ‘You talk about famine

DEFINING FOREIGN POLICY

931

in these areas! I do not find any people dead or dying. This
is not a famine.’ Doubtless, he had got his conception of
famine from the British days.

It is no small achievement that in spite of tremendous
natural calamities, such as the failure of the rains and
drought, which affected vast areas, the State Governments,
with the co-operation of the Central Government, have
prevented the situation from deteriorating and have
controlled it by giving work or doles. Unfortunately, they
could not always prevent misery and hunger. The Govern-
ment of Bombay State, for instance, recognizes its respon-
sibility of providing food in scarcity areas whether It is
through works — which some hon. Members must have seen in
Rayalaseema and in the Karnataka areas — or other means.
Two years ago, a huge administrative venture was under-
taken with considerable success in Bihar. Unfortunately, we
cannot deal satisfactorily with accidents, such as the failure of
the monsoons. As I said, natural calamities have done
considerable damage but we are building up our strength so
as to be able to deal with the situation. It is difficult to cope
with great disasters; but we should be able to overcome
natural calamities in the course of the next two or chree years.
By then, I think, it should be possible — I dare not give any
promise — to become more or less self-sufficient in food.

Some people say that we are always talking about agricul-
ture to the neglect of industry. I attach the greatest
importance to the development of industry but I doubt
whether any real industrial development can take place in
India till we have a firm basis for our agriculture. Of course,
we must make progress on all fronts. The nation’s economic
growth is no simple matter. We have to plan the nation’s
savings and long term investments with great care. Saving for
future generations means exerting some pressure on the pre-
sent generation. It means, if I may say so, a certain austerity.
It is all very well for an authoritarian government to dictate
a policy it considers good for the country; but it is not so easy
for a democratic country to do so. It is difficult to ask people
to starve today to have jam tomorrow. Even great countries
like the United Kingdom and the U.S.A. took 150 years to

532

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1955

build themselves- up. Those hon. Members who are acquaint-
ed with history know that this meant extreme suffering for
their working classes. The proprietors themselves were not
men who liked luxury; they were austere people who saved
so that their industrial apparatus might grow and they did
this at a terrible cost. It was not difficult to do this in England
where Parliament at that time was controlled by a small
group of propertied people. Conditions were different in
America where there were vast areas. We are differently
situated in many ways; for one thing, we have an enormous
population which grows* every year and which has to be
maintained. Also, we have adult suffrage in a- democratic
set-up.

Some people suggest that we should have a capital levy in
order to save for investment. Others want to improve the
general standard of living which, apart from the psychological
good it may do, will not gain much for us. What really counts
is the increase in our rate of production. To build up an
adequate apparatus for an increase in future production, you
naturally have to save today. To do this and to solve our
other problems, we must have definite industrial, financial
and land policies. Therefore, we have inaugurated the Five
Year Plan and the great point in its favour is that it has
made people plan-conscious generally. It has also made us
aware of the basic realities, such as the true nature of our
position and resources. Of course, we can vary the Plan
whenever we like, although it is dangerous to think of chang-
ing it constantly.

The House will remember that in the President’s Address
there is a reference to the Welfare State. He has also said that
the real test of progress lies in the growth of employment and
in the ultimate ending of unemployment. Obviously, there
can be no Welfare State if there is unemployment. Anyhow,
the unemployed themselves are not parties to the Welfare
State but just outside its pale. To realize the ideal of a Welfare
State requires hard work, tremendous effort and co-operation
from us and I appeal to this House and to the country to give
us that co-operation.

Finally, I should like to say a few words about the Praja

DEFINING FOREIGN POLICY

sss

Parishad agitation. My friend, the hon. Acharya Narendra
Dev, referred to it and said that in his opinion it was a wholly
communal agitation initiated by those who had been
supporters of the former Maharaja and the landed gentry.
He also suggested that an investigation should be made .to
find out why this agitation, which was primarily a class agita-
tion - , should have affected other people. I agree that there
should be an investigation but we must remember that some
aspects of this question may not be as well known as others.
To understand the significance of the agitation, we must
distinguish its purely economic aspect from the other, which
is political, constitutional and, perhaps, even international.

As the House knows, an official commission, with the
Chief Justice of the State — a very responsible and able officer
— as its president, has been appointed to deal with economic
matters. Had the commission been non-official, it should
immediately have been condemned as not being representa-
tive. I submit to the House that it was hardly possible for the
Kashmir Government to appoint a commission constituted
by the very people who were against the former. If it had
appointed non-officials, other non-officials might have said:
‘These are your party men.’ I think the Kashmir Govern-
ment very wisely appointed a purely official commission whose
findings it can accept and give effect to.

Many things are said about other matters which are of a
political nature. The hon. Member who spoke before me
said something about our National Flag. The Constituent
Assembly of Kashmir has repeatedly said that the Union
Flag is the supreme flag of Kashmir State as it is of the rest
of India and it has, therefore, been displayed from time to
time. It is interesting to note that many of those who talk
about their respect for the National Flag have, in the past,
openly declared their intention to replace it by their own
party flag. Communal organizations, be they in Jammu or
in Delhi, have seldom shown respect for our flag and now
they exploit it in order to gain other people’s goodwill for
this agitation. My chief grievance and sorrow in this matter
is that legitimate things have been exploited for unworthy
objectives.

334

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949 1953

There is nobody here who does not want the State of
Jammu and Kashmir to have the closest association with
India. There is no difference of opinion on this objective but
the way that has been pursued has made its realization very
difficult. Our union with Jammu and Kashmir State can
only be based on the wishes of the people of Jammu and
Kashmir; we are not going to achieve a union at the point
of the bayonet. Our policy, therefore, should be to try and win
them over instead of frightening them. We must not disturb
the status of Jammu and Kashmir State but let it remain a
separate entity in the Union of India. The accession of
Jammu and Kashmir State was identical with that of any
other State in India, although it was thought at the time that
there might be a variation in the degree to which States
would be integrated with India in the future. We certainly
did not think it possible that all the States could be integrated
with India to the same degree. I am talking of 1947 or
perhaps early 1948. When Jammu and Kashmir State
acceded, it did so as fully as any other State, so that the
question of partial accession does not arise. I should especially
like to point this out to people who talk about the reference
to the United Nations on the possibility of a plebiscite. This
does not detract from Kashmir’s accession to India in any
way. The accession is complete. Accession must, however,
be distinguished from integration. Jammu and Kashmir
State acceded first and then integrated as the other States had
done and in the same degree. However, the late Sardar
Vallabhbhai Patel wisely followed a policy of fuller integra-
tion for the other States; but in the nature of things, we could
not follow a similar policy in Kashmir where a war, which
had almost become an international issue, was going on.

Last year, the question of further accession arose — not as
such but in connection with certain other arrangements with
Kashmir. The agreement between the Governments of India
and Kashmir had to do with a number of things to which this
House agreed and the implementation of which was tanta-
mount to a further degree of integration.

We are sometimes asked why that agreement has not
been fully implemented yet. The question is apparently

DEFINING FOREIGN POLICY

335

justified but the fact is that the Jammu and Kashmir Govern-
ment is even more than the others, an autonomous govern-
ment. It is up to it to shoulder the responsibility for the
situations it may have to face. If something happens in Bengal
or Bombay or Madras, we can only give advice because
they are autonomous States and must deal with the local
situation themselves. The same is true of Kashmir also. We
cannot order the Government of Kashmir about or foist a
time-table on it. We leave it to it to judge its own affairs and
take such action as it deems fit.

In view of the war and the other events which have given
it an international significance, Kashmir had to be treated as
a special case. The Jammu Praja Parishad agitation started
the very day the agreement between the Governments of
India and Kashmir was given effect to in part and when the
new head of the State, the Sadar-e-Riyasat, elected by the
Kashmir Assembly and approved by our President, arrived
in Jammu. The Parishad workers tried to interfere with die
welcome given to the Yuvaraj and tore the triumphal arch
down. That was how it started but iL has continued ever
since. Had the Kashmir Government been anxious to
implement the rest of the agreement, it could not have done
so without dealing with the existing situation first. Its hands
were thus tied to some extent because of the agitation. The
history of Kashmir, going back a little over a hundred years,
bears evidence that the State has had to experience repeated
conquest, transfer, purchase and so on. The Jammu province
of the State was most important from political and other
points of view just as Hyderabad was in the old days when the
Muslim community dominated. Now, things are completely
different. Naturally, Hyderabad has changed. The feudal
order that existed has gone, taking with it the big jagirs and
inevitably causing considerable distress among those who
depended on that feudal order as also among those who
depended on the armed forces which were disbanded. I
cannot compare the two; there are very great differences.
But there are resemblances, too, because both Jammu and
Hyderabad had dominant groups which resisted the political
changes that were taking place and disapproved of the new

336 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

land reform. Also, the background of the economic difficulties
of both has some common features.

The agitation soon assumed a violent form. I have here
with me particulars of over a hundred officers of the
Jammu and Kashmir Government — Deputy Commissioner,
Superintendents of Police, schoolmasters and constables —
who have been injured. Numerous school buildings have been
ransacked, furniture and other things destroyed and small
Government offices and treasuries looted. This is a curious
kind of ‘peaceful’ satyagraha. However, the Kashmir Govern-
ment has to deal with the situation but the agitation will,
as the House must realize, have unfortunate repercussions.
The demand of the Parishad is the complete integration of
Jammu with India but if Jammu were to have its wishes
carried out and Kashmir were left out of the picture, it would
obviously amount to the disruption of the State.

This is an extraordinary attitude to adopt and it can
certainly aid and comfort the enemies of India. I am amazed
when responsible people in India support an agitation which
can only result in injury to India as a whole and the people
of Jammu inevitably. If the agitation succeeds, it will be the
people of Jammu who will suffer. I had occasion to read
reports of some of the speeches made in the course of the
agitation. Appeals were made to subvert the Government
of India so that a different policy could be followed. Every-
body has a right to ask for his own government but such
demands on the part of the Jammu Parishad were merely an
excuse for something bigger. Whether or not the demands
are feasible is a matter which is being discussed at Geneva at
the moment. Naturally, we are anxious that this conflict
should end, normality should return and legitimate grievances
be removed. I am certain that the Kashmir Government is as
anxious as we are but how are we to decide complicated
constitutional and international problems? It is difficult
for us to discuss them with other people because we have to
consult so many parties. We are supposed to discuss these
problems in the market place with the Praja Parishad peoplel
I just do not understand how this can be done.

Principal Devaprasad Ghosh suggested that the question

DEFINING FOREIGN POLICY

SS7

of the aggressors and the plebiscite in Kashmir should be
discussed at Geneva. I had discussions with the leaders of the
Jan Sangh about how the aggressors can be got rid of. How-
ever, the question involves military matters, political matters,
constitutional and national matters. Since Pakistan is the
aggressor, the question involves the entire problem of war
and peace between India and Pakistan. Let us realize the
nature and depth of the problem and discuss it dispassionately.
By connecting it with the Jammu Parishad agitation, we
are giving it a communal outlook and that, I think, is fatal
for the whole country. It will disrupt the country and put
an end to our freedom. And there is such a wide gap bet seen
the two approaches that one cannot be too optimistic about
the possibility of an agreement.

My honourable friend Dr Kunzru showed grave concern
and expressed his disapproval of the fact that certain persons
in the Punjab had been arrested and detained in the course
of the past week or ten days. I believe about a dozen or so
have been arrested. I do not know whether Dr Kunzru
meant that under no circumstances should a person be so
arrested and detained or whether he thought that in the
peculiar circumstances now prevailing in the Punjab this
should not have been done.

If he means the former, I would submit that it is difficult
to agree with him and, indeed, I cannot do so; nor can any
other country agree with him in a final sense. Of course, it
is a thing which should not normally be done and I hope
it is not normally done; but it is done under the stress of
special circumstances. When the Punjab became a source of
supply to the people of Jammu, the latter used all kinds of
methods to excite the people there and to create trouble on
communal lines. Their techniques are still being employed
in Delhi and in some cities of western U.P. Processions are
being taken out with the shouting of explosive slogans.
Surely, that can lead to a very grave situation. Some of the
trouble occurred almost within a stone’s throw of the cease-
fire line. Since the Pakistan forces were on the other side,
we were anxious that our Army should keep completely out
of this. In fact, the disturbances were planned presumably

338

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

to excite the Army. I know that the Punjab Government
was gravely concerned for weeks because the ultimate
responsibility was theirs, whether they did anything or not.

I am sorry to have taken up so much of your time but the
subjects before the House in connection with the President’s
Address cover not only India but the world and responsibility
largely falls upon us, as a Parliament, to face our problems
with dignity and restraint, always keeping our principles
before us and always in a spirit of humility.

THE PSYCHOSIS OF FEAR

T his House has been debating this Motion for four days and
we have covered many subjects, big and small. We have
ranged all over the world and considered the problems of
India. I find it a little difficult to deal with all the issues in
the course of my reply. I hope the House will permit me to
deal only with what I consider to be the more important of
them. That, I feel, would be better than to divert the atten-
tion of the House to a maze of minor subjects, which, no
doubt, are important in themselves but which are, neverthe-
less, insignificant in the larger scheme of things today.

I should like to say that I have endeavoured to consider
these matters as dispassionately and as objectively as possible.
I have also tried to profit by the comments and criticisms
made. I shall, however, repudiate the charge of complacency
and smugness that has been levelled against me and my
colleagues. I cannot conceive how any person charged with
responsibility can be complacent today. Even if he were so
inclined, he cannot afford to be so. I certainly do not have
any feeling of complacency when I view the problems of this
country and the world. I have sometimes a sensation akin to
excitement when I think of the tremendous drama that is
taking place in the world. I also experience a sense of high

Speech in reply to debate on the President’s Address in the House of the
People. New Delhi, February 18, 1953

THE PSYCHOSIS OF FEAR

SS9

adventure when I consider what we are endeavouring to do
in this country in spite of the tremendous difficulties that
perpetually confront us. If hon. Members would only take
the trouble to read what I sometimes say outside this House,
they will discover that I always warn my colleagues against
complacency. By no means do we think that we have all the
wisdom. Any person who is dogmatic is necessarily
complacent. Complacency comes when one’s mind is closed
and one accepts a dogmatic phrase. Complacency is a narrow-
ness of outlook in the changing world of today.

I said a little while ago that I have endeavoured to
consider these matters dispassionately. At this point, I would
like to express to the House, in particular to the hon Dr
Syama Prasad Mookerjee, m) regret that I let myself be
provoked into a temper for a moment yesterday.

Before I proceed, I should like to deal with something
brought up by another hon. Member of the Opposition.
The hon. Member, Prof. Hirendra Nath Mukerjee, referred
to the landing of thousands of American military aircraft at
Dum Dum. I shall read out what the hon. Member said.
He referred to a U.S. Superfortress landing at the IAF Station
Agra, early in December 1952. He went on to say:

“Why is it that we hear — I want to be corrected later
by the Prime Minister, if I am wrong — that in October
1952 there were as many as 3,250 military landings at
Dum Dum Airport, out of which the contribution of
the Indian Air Force was only 25 while that of the
United States Air Force came to the tune of 1,200.”
I was so amazed at this statement that I enquired into the
matter. If the facts were as stated above, one could justifiably
imagine that a large scale invasion of India was in progress.
The facts as ascertained are as follows: No Superfortress
visited Agra in December or at any other time but an old
military type of aircraft, converted for civilian use, is kept by
the American Embassy and is based at Palam. This aircraft
visited Agra aerodrome on December 9, 1952 and returned to
Delhi the same day. The Dum Dum aerodrome near
Calcutta, however, is on the international route and is
visited daily by a very large number of aircraft belonging

MO

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

to different international lines flying from east to west and
west to east.

All these flights are subject to international rules and
usage. Sometimes, though rarely, permission is given to fly
over India without landing anywhere in the country.
Normally, foreign aircraft have to land at some airport
in India for examination and checks of various kinds.
Military aircraft belonging to a foreign State can fly to and
across India only with the prior approval of the Government
of India and in accordance with an agreement entered into
by that State with the Government of India. In the whole
of the year 1952, 459 military aircraft landed at Dum Dum.
Of these, only 118 belonged to the U.S. Air Force. None of
these American aircraft carried arms or ammunition or
personnel in uniform. The Indian Air Force has its head-
quarters at Palam and, therefore, relatively few landings
take place at Dum Dum.

We are concerned with both the international situation
and domestic situation. Even though we may consider them
separately, they are, to some extent, related. I do not suppose
there is any disagreement in this House about our ideal of the
Welfare State. The question is how to attain that end; and
certainly, there might well be difference of opinion in regard
to the means. Anyhow, the building up of a new India is a
tremendous adventure. Can there be anything more exciting
than the idea that the Welfare State of our dreams will
raise hundreds of millions of people to a fuller way of life?
Our problem is that, for a fairly long period, the country did
not grow as naturally as it might have done. It seems as
though a number of centuries, all jostled up together, have
suddenly been hurled into the middle of the 20th century.
This is not a matter one can really understand in an academic
debate. India’s vast regions are by no means uniform; they
are all at different stages of economic, industrial and agricul-
tural growth. We are trying to develop the whole country
more or less at the same time and if we are not able to
perform miracles, we can hardly be blamed. However, while
we are engaged in this gigantic and difficult task, we have
little time to spare for and little energy to give to inter-

THE PSYCHOSIS OF FEAR J41

national affairs. But we do not have much choice in the
matter because international affairs hit us in the face It is
part of India’s destiny that she should play her part in these
affairs like other countries whether she wishes to or not.
We are part of the international community and no
country, . much less a large country like India, can remain
isolated from it. So, we are of necessity involved in inter-
national affairs which grow more and more complicated every
day.

The United Nations Organization came into existence
seven or eight years ago and it represented the timeless urge
of humanity for peace. The League of Nations, even a- its
commencement, was not what might be called an inter-
national organization with a universal background. Great
countries kept out of it and were kept out of it. The United
Nations at the time of its inauguration was, at least, based on
a presumption of universality, because it symbolized the
longing among all peoples for the return of peace. Countries
differing from one another in the structure of government,
economic and political policy and in a great many other
respects were able to come together under the huge umbrella
of the United Nations. So that, the first attribute of the
United Nations — at least, the supposed attribute — may be
said to have been universality. The other attribute was the
main objective, namely, the maintenance of peace, the
growth of co-operative effort among nations and the solution
of disputes by peaceful means as far as possible. The United
Nations laid down a rule concerning the veto of certain great
Powers. It is very easy to criticize that rule as illogical,
undemocratic and all that but, as a matter of fact, the rule
recognized the reality of the moment. The United Nations
could not adopt sanctions against any of the great Powers.
Such sanctions could be vetoed and would, in any case, mean
a world war. If the United Nations was to avoid a world
war, it had to bring in some such clause. Let us see how
such a situation actually developed.

First of all, we find that the principle of universality with
which the United Nations started has been departed from. A
great country like China is not given recognition at the

23—11 DPD/CS

M2 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-195S

United Nations. Whether we like or dislike the present
Government in China or whether we approve or disapprove
of China’s revolution is not at all relevant to the patent fact.
The basic principle of universality has been abandoned by the
United Nations. This is a return to the attitude that caused
the League of Nations to fail. The matter does not end with
expressing an academic opinion; the failure of the United
Nations to give recognition to a country which is obviously
stable and strong has given rise to fresh problems of a
universal character.

This great organization built for peace is itself engaged in
war sponsoring today. I am not blaming anybody but only
trying to analyse the situation as objectively as I can. Is it
possible that the world has not grown up and is incapable of
having an international organization for peace? I do not
know. People talk about a united world; many wise,
intelligent and ardent people adtocate the ideal of world
federalism but we again and again prove ourselves unable
to give effect to it. Is it possible for countries entirely different
from one another in their political, economic and other
policies to co-operate or must they remain apart? There
was a time, centuries ago, when it did not much matter
whether they did or not because there was no natural contact.
Today, there is continuous contact, which can be friendly
or hostile. I find myself wondering again and again whether
an international organization, containing within its core
countries with entirely different aims, can exist. I feel sure it
can and, what is more, see no reason why it should not func-
tion efficiently. After all, when the United Nations was
started, countries like the United States of America and the
U.S.S.R. did co-operate and come together before they
drifted apart. For my part, I do not see why they should not
be able to function together in an organization, provided, of
course, they did not interfere with one another and so long
as each was free to carry on the policy it chose for itself.
Difficulties arise only when there are attempts at interference.
Then, of course, there is conflict and it is very difficult to
find out who started the interfering. Charges and counter-
charges are made and things rapidly go from bad to worse.

THE PSYCHOSIS OF FEAR

MS

Another thing that intimately concerns us and to which
we must give recognition is the tremendous pace of
technological development. We, who live in the technological
world, do not wholly appreciate that it is making all the
difference to the world. The development of communications
and the huge strides taken in the art of warfare throw uS
together all the time. This has created a situation in which
a world war, should it occur, will cause such destruction
that no objective for which it is fought can ever be realized
through it.

In the circumstances, what can a country like India do?
We cannot influence other countries by force or aims or
pressure or money. We can only do things negatively and
what we can do positively is not much. To imagine that we
will shake the world or fashion international affairs accord-
ing to our thinking, as hon. Members seem to believe some-
times, is absurd. We cannot issue ultimatums or make
demands; nor can we express our views in strong language
to the world at large because it has little meaning unless we
are in a position to do something about it. Members of the
Opposition have repeatedly complained that the President
has used weak, circumspect language and failed to say
things forcefully one way or the other. I would beg of them
to remember that in the modern world, strength does not
reside in strong language. Nor does it reside in slogans. I
hope India is, with all her failings, a mature nation with a
tradition of restraint, a few thousand years old. A mature
nation does not and should not shout too much. I regret that
there is far too much shouting and cursing in the world today.
It may be perfectly justified but it is not good all the same.
The world is up against a grave problem. Two giant countries
dislike each other, try to undermine each other and yet
are terribly afraid of each other. We seem to be surrounded
by fear and hatred and that is the worst thing that can
happen to a country.

We cannot do much about it but it is certainly within our
power not to do anything or say anything which will increase
the fear and the hatred. We should not indulge in the contest
of shouting, cursing and slandering which seems to have

344 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

replaced diplomacy. Where we can help positively, we should
help, although there is always the risk that our attempts may
fail. We have been very cautious about our positive steps.
We have, however, endeavoured with a great deal of success
not to take part in controversies or in running other nations
down.

I must say, however, that whenever we have done any-
thing it has been in the hope that it will help the cause of
peace and a deeper understanding among nations. For
instance, there was the matter of the Korean Resolution.
We tried our utmost to find out what the other countries
concerned were prepared to accept or do. It is impossible
to find out everything but we did proceed on a sound enough
basis. About 90 or 95 per cent of what we put forward in that
resolution was almost a verbatim report of what had been
said to us separately by the parties concerned. I am not
justifying our actions; my point is that we have always tried
earnestly to put one party’s viewpoint before the other
without compromising anything. Well, we failed in the case
of the Korean Resolution and must suffer for that failure.

Some hon. Members on the other side of the House are
constantly repeating, as if it were a mantra which they had
learnt without understanding it, that we are stooges of the
Americans, that we are part of the Anglo-American bloc and
so on. Of course, such a statement, in the case of persons
who are less restrained than I am, might have led to a retort
but I do not wish to indulge in that kind of thing. I should
like them and others to make an effort to keep out of the
habit of learning a few slogans and phrases and repeating
them over and over again. That becomes quite stale.

My point is that peace requires peaceful methods. The
House will remember that Gandhiji always laid stress on the
question of means and ends. I am not entering into a meta-
physical argument but surely, if you demand peace, you
must work for it peacefully. A large number of countries,
big and small, talk about peace in an aggressive and warlike
manner. This does not applv to one group more than to
another; it applies almost to everybody. In fact, one might
say that peace is now spelt WAR. We are steadily acquiring

THE PSYCHOSIS OK FEAR

345

the military mentality while statesmanship has taken second
place.

A soldier is a very excellent person in his own domain
but somebody once said — I think it was a French statesman
— that even war was too serious a thing to be handed over to
a soldier to control, much less peace. This incursion of the
military mentality in the Chancelleries of the world is a
dangerous development. How can we meet it? I confess
that we in India cannot make too much of a difference. Of
course, we cannot take the world on our shoulders and
remodel it according to our heart’s desire; but we can help
in creating a climate of peace which is so essential ft 1 the
realization of our objectives.

There are many causes of war — some often discussed and
others hidden. Owing to a number of factors, chiefly
technological developments, political developments, nationa-
list movements and the like, vast masses of people all over the
world have ceased to be quiescent. That is a good thing.
People in colonial countries, for instance, are no longer pre-
pared to suffer or to put up with their present lot. Naturally,
they take notice of anything that appears to them to be a
liberating force; they are attracted by it. The ‘liberating force’
may not actually liberate them; it might even make things
worse. The whole world is in a fluid state, men’s minds have
been moved and perturbed and they seek somethings to sup-
port them and to guide them.

One would have thought that the first thing to do in such
a state of affairs would have been to remove the patent
grievances of the masses of downtrodden people. The problem
of colonialism has certainly been tackled to a considerable
extent in the few years since the war ended. It should be
dealt with still further and thus at least one of the causes of
dissatisfaction will be removed. That, I am afraid, has not
been done. Also, the tendency to look at the countries of
Asia as though they were on the outer fringe of things must
be checked. One of the most important developments of our
age has been what has taken place and is likely to take place
in Asia. Asia is today very wide awake, resurgent, active
and somewhat rebellious. These facts raise certain psycho-

346

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

logical problems whether it is in Asia or in Africa. There is
not the shadow of a doubt that the approach that is being
made in large parts of Africa is bound to fail. It does not
require a prophet to say that this approach will lead to racial
conflicts which will have the most dangerous consequences.
The steps that are being taken in South Africa may not be
related to the situation in the Far East or in Central Europe
and Germany but they are basic facts which may do much
to shape the world of tomorrow.

What policy can India pursue in this matter? As I said,
whatever the policy we decide to pursue, we should talk in a
quiet voice and not shout. We should talk in terms of peace,
not of threats or curses of war. We must try to convert strong
feeling into strength and not into bad temper. There are only
two ways of approaching the problem of international rela-
tions. One is the conviction that, even though we try to avoid
it, war is bound to come. Therefore, we should prepare for
it and when it comes, join this party or that. The other way
starts with the feeling that war can be avoided. Now, there is
a great difference in these two approaches. If you are
mentally convinced that war is bound to come, you naturally
accustom yourself to the idea and, perhaps unconsciously,
even work for it. On the other hand, if you want to work for
the avoidance of war, you must believe that it can be avoided.
Of course, no country can entirely ignore the possibility of
being entangled in a war; it must take such precautions as it
ought to. I do not think people anywhere want war but
somehow they have come to the conclusion that it must come.
So far as we are concerned, we do not believe that war is
inevitable, although it is a dangerous possibility. Apart from
the political or diplomatic field, one can work for its
avoidance even in the psychological field.

The House is aware that certain statements have been
made in the United States of America by the highest
authorities in regard to the Far East. These have caused grave
concern not only to us here but in many countries all over
the world. I confess that it is not clear to me even now exactly
what the implications of these statements are. But, whatever
the meaning behind them, there is no doubt about the

THE PSYCHOSIS OP FEAR

947

impression they have created and the reactions they have
produced. From the point of view of world psychology, they
have had a disastrous effect. All this talk of the blockade of
China obviously does not conduce to peace or settlement. I
must say that we as a government and, I am sure, as a people,
view these developments with the greatest concern. It is no
good using strong language. That will not impress anybody
more than the quiet statements we might make. Our opinion,
for what it is worth, has been conveyed quite clearly.

Hon. Members of the Opposition have talked a great deal
about hunger and starvation in India. I believe there is an
amendment to the effect that the economic situation has
deteriorated.

It is easy in a country like India to prepare a catalogue of
the suffering and distress and poverty that exist. The test,
however, is whether (or not) we are getting over these diffi-
culties, how far we have gone, how far we are likely to go and
what steps we are taking. Objectively, there is no doubt that
the economic situation in the country has improved consider-
ably. It is not a matter of judgment but of facts and figures.
I think the lot of the peasantry — I am not for the moment
talking of the landless labourer — has improved greatly. This
is a great, big country and it is very difficult to make generali-
zations, because there will always be exceptions. The landless
labourer is very important and we should do our utmost for
him. In some cases, the landless labourer has also done well;
in others, he has not. The industrial population certainly
is not worse. It is, if anything, better than it has been during
the last few years. In spite of a growing population, the
general condition of the people is, I think, better. I admit
that does not mean much, since the standard we start with is
very low, indeed.

Some people seem to be greatly impressed by the econo-
mic progress made by the Soviet Union. But, in spite of that
great progress, the standards of living in the Soviet Union and
in America are very different. That is not a condemnation of
the Soviet Union. The fact is that the standard of living in
the United States is the highest in the world. The Russian
Revolution took place in November 1917. Ten years later.

348 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

let us say in 1927, what was the progress made? I admire
the progress they made and appreciate that they had civil
wars and tremendous difficulties but what I am pointing out
is that their progress should not be compared with that of
America. It should be judged in relation to where they
started from at the time of the Revolution. In other words,
it is the pace of growth that must be judged.

Similarly, it is not fair to compare India with China.
I do not mean to imply that we are cleverer than China
or that we are going ahead faster. The Chinese are an
amazing people — amazing in the sense of their capacity for
hard work and for co-operative work. I doubt if there are
any other people quite equal to them in this respect. But
between us, there is a very big difference, the effects of which
it remains for history to show. The difference is that we are
trying to function in a democratic set-up. It is no good saying
that we are better or more virtuous than others. No question
of virtue is involved in this. Ultimately, it is a question of
which set-up and which structure of government — political
or economic — pays the highest dividends. When I say highest
dividends, I do not mean merely material dividends although
they are important but cultural and spiritual dividends also.
Intellectual freedom is an important factor, certainly; but
the future will show its worth. We have deliberately chosen a
democratic set-up and we feel that it is good for our people
and for our country in the ultimate analysis. Nevertheless, it
sometimes slows down the pace of growth for we have to
weigh the demands of tomorrow with the needs of today in
the building up of our country.

A country, which is poor in resources, does not have the
means to invest for the future and the country is pressed
between the needs of today and the demands of tomorrow.
If you want a surplus, you have to be strict with yourself
in the present. And democracy does not like stinting in
the present — not usually. In times of great crisis, it might.
Democracy wants today die good things of today. That is the
disadvantage of democracy.

We talk a great deal about democracy but in its present
shape and form it is a relatively new concept. The old type of

THE PSYCHOSIS OF FEAR

349

democracy was a limited one in many ways. Now we have
adult suffrage and the biggest electorate in the world. With
all my admiration and love for democracy, I am not prepared
to accept the statement that the largest number of people are
always right.

We know how people can be excited and their passions
roused in a moment. Is this House prepared to submit to the
momentary passion of a democratic crowd? Was not
democracy functioning five and a half years ago when people
were killing one another and millions of them were migrat-
ing to escape from atrocities and horror? I do not blame
those poor people but I do say that even democracy can go
mad; democracy can be incited to do wrong. Demociacy, in
fact, is sometimes more warlike than individuals who at least
have some training.

In any case, we have to build India according to demo-
cratic methods. We have decided to do so because we feel that
democracy offers society something of the highest human
values. But war puts an end to the very values that demo-
cracy cherishes. Democracy, in fact, is a casualty of war in the
world today. It does not seem to function properly any more.
That has been the tragedy of the last two world wars and
something infinitely worse is likely to happen if there is
another war.

I would beg hon. Members to take this fact into consider-
ation. I have no objection to their criticizing the Government
or even condemning it but they must not help in creating an
atmosphere of depression and frustration in the country.
The psychology of the people is more important than any
decree of the Government. My personal impression of the
country cannot, perhaps, be a hundred per cent true of the
whole country. But I know something of my people. I make
an effort to understand them and it has been my high
privilege to have their affection and confidence. During the
last five or six months I have found that people, in their
enthusiasm, have sometimes undertaken almost all the plans
that we have put forward and often voluntarily. The few
hundred miles of road they have made or the tanks they have
dug are, of course, important in themselves. But infinitely

350

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1 953

more important is the spirit which went into this work. That
is the spirit we count on; that is that spirit which will make
the Five Year Plan and our other plans a success.

I referred just now to the Five Year Plan. Many hon.
Members have criticized it. As I have said before, there is
nothing sacrosanct about the Plan. We have laid down certain
policies about land, food, etc. I think they are good policies.
Convince us to the contrary and we will change them. But
it is no good telling us to do things which are beyond our
resources. We are prepared to take risks but intelligent risks.
We cannot gamble with the heavy responsibility of carrying
out this Plan. Even so, legitimate risks have certainly to be
taken, for we realize that the policy of being too cautious is
the greatest risk of all. An hon. Member mentioned our
industrial policy. We believe that it is essential for India to be
industrialized. We also believe that our industrial policy
should be based on the development of basic industries like
steel and so on. But we realize that our industrial develop-
ment must have the foundation of a strong agricultural
economy if it is to endure. Even if that were not so, the aspect
of food as such is important enough; if we do not have food
in the country and have to depend on other countries, it will
be an ill day for us. We must aim at being self-sufficient in
food; otherwise any industrial structure we build up will
topple over.

I was just saying that the community projects have been
in existence for the last two or three months. Some are func-
tioning extraordinarily well, some moderately well, others
not well at all. But, on the whole, I think we are doing
satisfactorily.

May I say a few words in regard to the subject which
completely occupied Dr Mookerjee during his speech
yesterday? He spoke on the Praja Parishad agitation in
Jammu. I have no doubt that it is a matter of importance but
we should always assess the relative importance of things.
When we draw’ up a plan, it pays us to give priority to certain
things and attend to them first. We cannot do everything at
once. An eminent person said long ago, that you cannot
discard truth but it makes all the difference in the world

THE PSYCHOSIS OF FEAR

351

whether you put truth in the first place or iirthe second.
Similarly, in considering a problem, whether it is political or
economic, the order of priorities you give is most important,
especially for this House, since it has to shoulder the burden
of the governance of India. It is true that we have to think
of the details also but if once we lose sight of the whole, then
we' are lost in a maze.

The hon. Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee was very indignant
at the abuse hurled at him and his colleagues. The only thing
he could resent is that he was called communal. First of all,
let me express my pleasure at the discovery that he considers
communalism an abusive term. I hope he will gradually
convert his colleagues to the same point of view. 1 seem to
remember that at one time he took pride in being communal.

An hon. Member talked of the ‘right type’ of communa-
lism. I am afraid I do not understand what he means. We
remember the occurrences in the autumn of 1947. And
finally, we also remember January 30, when the greatest of
us was shot down by a foolish youth. 1 do not quite know
how the hon. Member interprets the last thirty years of
India’s history. The normal analysis has been that there are,
in India, various kinds of forces. There are some Rightists,
some Leftists and others that are neither. The Rightist groups
have gradually found that they could not be effective in a
purely social sphere. They have, therefore, taken advantage
of the cloak of religion to cover up their reactionary policies,
have exploited the name of religion in politics and have
excited people’s passions in that name. This was done with a
tremendous degree of success by the Muslim League. It was
done by some Hindu and Sikh organizations also. There is a
basic weakness in us as a national community. Our caste
system, our provincialism and our regionalism have all
encouraged us to live in compartments. I am glad to say
that we are now growing out of it. I have no doubt that India
would not have been partitioned but for communalism.
The narrow outlook of trying to gain a favour for this group
or that community at the expense of the larger good has
weakened us in the past. It was only in the measure that we
got over it — and we got over it in the past on account of

562 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1955

our national movement — that we gained our freedom; but we
did not get over it adequately enough to prevent the parti-
tion. In the modern world, you cannot employ force in
dealing with people. You cannot hold them by the bayonet.
You must hold their minds and their hearts. Of course, you
can excite them at any moment but in the long run you have
to win their goodwill.

We have in India 40 million Muslims — as big a number
as any other Muslim country has excepting Pakistan and
Indonesia. Pakistan, in any case, is split up into two. Neither
East Pakistan nor West Pakistan has as many Muslims as
India. Any propaganda, that gives these people a sense of
insecurity or makes them feel that they do not have the same
opportunities for development and progress as everybody else,
is an anti-national thing and a communal thing. I submit that
such propaganda is going on and that there are organizations
in the country whose sole purpose seems to be to promote it.

An hon. Member talked a great deal about the full
integration of Jammu and Kashmir State with India. I think
that the proper integration of India is a major question and
I give it the highest priority. Compared to it, I would give
even the Five Year Plan the second priority. By integration
I do not only mean constitutional and legal integration but
the integration of the minds and hearts of the people of India.
We have inherited a strong tradition of unity, built largely on
two contradictory factors. The first was our subjection to
British rule and the other the national movement. An hon.
Member has suggested Hindu culture as a third factor but he
is mistaken. What he is saying is important in another context
and not in that of political unity. It led to cultural unity,
which is a different thing entirely. We are talking about
political unity at the moment. We have also, it must be
admitted, inherited powerful disruptive tendencies. The
question is, whether the unifying influence will prove to be
stronger than the disruptive forces. I believe that the unifying
influence is stronger. The danger is that people, who do not
give much thought to this, feel secure in a false sense of unity.
They pursue disruptive tendencies till they have gone too far
and reach a point where they cannot be checked. That is

THE PSYCHOSIS OF FEAR

S5S

why the integration of the minds and hearts of the people of
India is vital. That is not a matter the law can settle. The law
and the constitution should come in to register the decrees of
the mind and the heart. That is the point of view from which
the question of Jammu and Kashmir should be approached.

An.hon. Member repeatedly said that I had refused to
meet the Praja Parishad people and that 1 treated them as
political untouchables. About a year ago I did, as a matter
of fact, meet the President of the Praja Parishad, Pandit
Premnath Dogra. I met him here in Delhi and had a long talk
with him. Of course, the present agitation had not started
but there were some minor agitations. We talked of important
matters affecting Jammu and Kashmir and it seemed »o me
that he had accepted my viewpoint and agreed to what I
said. I had told him that his method of approach was bad
for Jammu and Kashmir State and for Jammu specially and
also for the objective he sought to achieve. Two days later, I
saw a statement in the press that had been issued by him. To
my amazement, it said the opposite of what he had given me
to understand. The statement gave the impression that I had
accepted his argument. Letters were sent to tell him that it
was very wrong of him to have done that. The incident
made me feel that he was not a safe person to see often because
he would exploit every meeting and I would have to explain
each time what had happened. About two months later, he
asked to see me and I sent word that our last interview had
not been a success, had, in fact, created difficulties and since
I was also busy with my duties in Parliament I could not see
him. There was no third occasion when such a question had
arisen. I should like to read a few lines from the report of a
speech delivered in the other House, not by a member of our
Party but by a very eminent Member of the Opposition,
Acharya Narendra Dev. That, surely, must be an objective
analysis because it is by a person who has no desire merely to
support the Government. That is what he said:

"The other question, Sir, is the delicate question of
Kashmir. 1 am not competent to pronounce any
authoritative opinion on this matter but I will say with
a full sense of responsibility that it is a communal

354

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

agitation, that the Parishad is the old R.S.S. It opposed
the land reform movement. It supported the Maharaja
in the days of old and when the R.S.S. was suppressed,
it assumed a new name overnight and is masquerading
under the name of the Praja Parishad. I say that this
agitation is ill-timed, ill-conceived and is calculated to
render the greatest injury to our larger interests.”

Since I do not wish to be unfair to the House, I will add
that subsequently Acharya Narendra Dev went on to say:

“ It has assumed a mass character in that area and

we have to find out the actual reasons which have led
these masses to be thrown into the net of communalists.

I want the communalist leaders to be isolated from the
masses. And we should, therefore, try to understand
with sympathy the reasons, however wrong they may
be, which have led a large number of people to join the
communal forces in the country.”

The hon. Member referred to the Militia in this connec-
tion and said that it consisted mostly of Muslims. As a matter
of fact, the total number of the militia in the State is 5,720.
The figures are: Muslims — 1,859; Hindus — 2,763; Buddhists
— 456; Sikhs — 618; Miscellaneous — I do not quite know
what ‘Miscellaneous’ means — 24. And what is more, the
militia in Jammu is largely Hindu. The fact of the matter is
that in the past no Kashmiri, Hindu or Muslim, was allowed
to enter the army. The Kashmiris were sensitive to the fact
that they were not allowed to enter the army or any semi-
armed formations like the constabulary. The old Kashmir
army was full of people from Jammu, Hindus and Muslims
alike. It is not easy to get a Kashmiri into the militia, for he
is not used to it; thus a great difficulty has arisen in the
Kashmir Valley.

I do not wish to go into the details of the Praja Parishad
movement. I say that mere repression will not do; I also
realize that the grievances of the people concerned — I am
talking about the large number of people, the masses and
when I say grievances, I am referring to economic grievances
— must be met. To use the words of Acharya Narendra Dev,
these people should be separated from the wrong leadership

THE PSYCHOSIS OF FEAR

S55

that has misled them; but this must be left to them to decide.

It seems to me an extraordinary thing that the agitation of
a group in Jammu — a large group, if you like — wants to affect
the Constitution of India, wants to do things that will not
only affect the State of Jammu and Kashmir but also India
and her relations with Pakistan and the United Nations!
It is an' extraordinary demand that we should be called upon
to give assurances about things that will have powerful and
far-reaching consequences. This matter was carefully
considered by the Government of India and the representa-
tives of the Government of Kashmir and certain agreements
were arrived at, which we thought, in the circumst nces,
good and adequate. -

When I am asked questions about the United Nations I
am in difficulty. I do not want to go into the question of the
right and wrong of actions taken four or five years ago. I do
not want to undo anything or withdraw anything that I have
said at any time. We have a high reputation and I do not
think it does any good to a country to beha\e in a manner
which might discredit it in the slightest degree. We gave our
pledge to the United Nations in regard to Kashmir. It is
true, if I may say so, that we have not had a very fair deal.
Some powerful countries seem to have delighted in putting
forward propositions to which we cannot agree. This is
probably because the basis of their thought is different. But
there it is.

I have taken an enormous amount of time and I am very
grateful to this House for the indulgence with which it has
listened to me.

ON SCIENCE AND CULTURE

WHAT IS CULTURE ?

I have come here with pleasure, because I have always
looked forward to furthering the cause of India’s cultural
association, not only with the neighbouring countries to the
East and West but with the wider world outside. It is not a
question of merely wanting such cultural association or
considering it good; it is rather a question of the necessity of
the situation which is bound to worsen if nothing is done to
prevent it. I earnestly hope that the formation of the Indian
Council for Cultural Relations will lead to a better under-
standing between our people and the peoples of other
countries.

There is a great deal of confusion in my mind and I shall
state quite frankly what it is. All kinds of basic questions crop
up from what is going on in the world around us. Nations,
individuals and groups talk of understanding one another
and it seems an obvious thing that people should try to
understand one another and to learn from one another. Yet,
when I look through the pages of history or study current
events, I sometimes find that people who know one another
most, quarrel most. Countries, which are next door to one
another in Europe or in Asia, somehow seem to rub one
another up the wrong way, though they know one another
very thoroughly. Thus knowledge, by itself, does not lead to
greater co-operation or friendship. This is not a new thing.
Even the long pages of history show that. Has there been
something wrong in individual nations or in the approach
to this question? Or is it something else that has not worked
as it should have done? When we talk of cultural relations,
the question that immediately arises in my mind is — what
exactly is the ‘culture’ that people talk so much about?

Speech at the inauguration of the Indian Council for Cultural Relations,
New Delhi, April 9, 1950

WHAT IS CULTURE?

S57

When I was younger in years, I remember reading about
German ‘kultur’ and of the attempts of the German people
to spread it by conquest and other means. There was a big
war to spread this ‘kultur’ and to resist it. Every country and
every individual seems to have its peculiar idea of culture.
When there is talk about cultural relations — although it is
very good in theory — what actually happens is that those
peculiar ideas come into conflict and instead of leading to
friendship they lead to more estrangement. It is a basic
question — what is culture? And I am certainly not
competent to give you a definition of it because I have not
found one.

One can sec each nation and each separate civil. zation
developing its own culture that had its roots in generations
hundreds and thousands of years ago. One sees these nations
being intimately moulded by the impulse that initially starts
a civilization going on its long path. That conception is
affected by other conceptions and one sees action and inter-
action between these varying conceptions. There is, I suppose,
no culture in the world which is absolutely pristine, pure and
unaffected by any other culture. It simply cannot be, just as
nobody can say that he belongs one hundred per cent to a
particular racial type, because in the course of hundreds and
thousands of years unmistakable changes and mixtures have
occurred.

So, culture is bound to get a little mixed up, even though
the basic element of a particular national culture remains
dominant. If that kind of thing goes on peacefully, there is no
harm in it. But it often leads to conflicts. It sometimes leads
a group to fear that their culture is being overwhelmed by
what they consider to be an outside or alien influence. Then
they draw themselves into a shell which isolates them and
prevents their thoughts and ideas going out. That is an
unhealthy situation, because in any matter and much more
so in what might be called a cultural matter, stagnation is the
worst possible thing. Culture, if it has any value, must have
a certain depth. It must also have a certain dynamic
character. After all, culture depends on a vast number of
factors. If we leave out what might be called the basic mould

24—11 DPD/65

358

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

that was given to it in the early stages of a nation’s or a
people’s growth, it is affected by geography, by climate and
by all kinds of other factors. The culture of Arabia is inti-
mately governed by the geography and the deserts of Arabia
because it grew up there. Obviously, the culture of India in
the old days was affected greatly, as we see in our own litera-
ture, by the Himalayas, the forests and the great rivers of
India among other things. It was a natural growth from the
soil. Of the various domains of culture, like architecture,
music and literature, any two may mix together, as they
often did, and produce a happy combination. But where
there is an attempt to improve something or the other which
does not naturally grow and mould itself without uprooting
itself, conflict inevitably arises. Then also comes something
which to my mind is basically opposed to all ideas of culture.
And that is the isolation of the mind and the deliberate
shutting up of the mind to other influences. My own view of
India’s history is that we can almost measure the growth and
the advance of India and the decline of India by relating
them to periods when India had her mind open to the outside
world and when she wanted to close it up. The more she
closed it up, the more static she became. Life, whether of the
individual, group, nation or society, is essentially a dynamic,
changing, growing thing. Whatever stops that dynamic
growth also injures it and undermines it.

We have had great religions and they have had an
enormous effect on humanity. Yet, if I may say so with all
respect and without meaning any ill to any person, those very
religions, in the measure that they made the mind of man
static, dogmatic and bigoted, have had, to my mind, an evil
effect. The things they said may be good but when it is
claimed that the last word has been said, society becomes
static.

The individual human being or race or nation must
necessarily have a certain depth and certain roots some-
where. They do not count for much unless they have roots in
the past, which past is after all the accumulation of genera-
tions of experience and some type of wisdom. It is essential
that you hat e that. Otherwise you become just pale copies of

WHAT IS CULTURE ?

359

something which has no real meaning to you as an individual
or as a group. On the other hand, one cannot live in roots
alone. Even roots wither unless they come out in the sun and
the free air. Only then can the roots give you sustenance.
Only then can there be a branching out and a flowering.
•How,., then, are you to balance these two essential factors?
It is very difficult, because some people think a great deal
about the flowers and the leaves on the branches, forgetting
that they only flourish because there is a stout root to sustain
them. Others think so much of the roots that no flowers or
leaves or branches are left; there is only a thick stern some-
where. So, the question is how one is to achieve a balance.

Does culture mean some inner growth in the man? Of
course, it must. Docs it mean the way he behaves to others?
Certainly it must. Docs it mean the capacity to understand
the other person? I suppose so. Does it mean the capacity to
make yourself understood by the other person? I suppose so
It means all that. A person who cannot undei stand another’s
viewpoint is to that extent limited in mind and culture,
because nobody, perhaps, barring some very extraordinary
human beings, can presume to have the fullest knowledge
and wisdom. The other party or the other group may also
have some inkling of knowledge or wdsdom or truth and if
we shut our minds to that then we not only deprive ourselves
of it but we cultivate an attitude of mind which, I would
say, is opposed to that of a cultured man. The cultured mind,
rooted in itself, should have its doors and windows open. It
should have the capacity to understand the other’s view-
point fully even though it cannot always agree with it. The
question of agreement or disagreement only arises when you
understand a thing. Otherwise, it is blind negation which is
not a cultured approach to any question.

I should like to use another word — science. What is a
scientific approach to life’s problems? I suppose it is one of
examining everything, of seeking truth by trial and error and
by experiment, of never saying that this must be so but trying
to understand why it is so and, if one is convinced of it, of
accepting it, of having the capacity to change one's notions
the moment some other proof is forthcoming, of having an

360 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

open mind, which tries to imbibe the truth wherever it is
found. If that is culture, how far is it represented in the
modern world and in the nations of today? Obviously, if it
was represented more than it is, many of our problems,
national and international, would be far easier to solve.

Almost every country in the world believes that it has
some special dispensation from Providence, that it is of the
chosen people or race and that others, whether they are good
or bad, are somewhat inferior creatures. It is extraordinary
how this kind of feeling persists in all nations of the East as
well as of the West without exception. The nations of the
East are strongly entrenched in their own ideas and convic-
tions and sometimes in their own sense of superiority about
certain matters. Anyhow, in the course of the last two or three
hundred years, they have received many knocks on the head
and they have been humiliated, they have been debased and
they have been exploited. And so, in spite of their feeling that
they were superior in many ways, they were forced to admit
that they could be knocked about and exploited. To some
extent, this brought a sense of realism to them. There was
also an attempt to escape from reality by saying that it was
sad that we were not so advanced in material and technical
things but that these were after all superficial things;
nevertheless, we were superior in essential things, in spiritual
things, in moral values. I have no doubt that spiritual things
and moral values are ultimately more important than other
things but the way one finds escape in the thought that one
is spiritually superior, simply because one is inferior in a
material and physical sense, is surprising. It does not follow
by any means. It is an escape from facing up to the causes
of one’s degradation.

Nationalism, of course, is a curious phenomenon which at
a certain stage in a country’s history gives life, growth,
strength and unity but, at the same time, it has a tendency to
limit one, because one thinks of one's country as something
different from the rest of the world. The perspective changes
and one is continuously thinking of one’s own struggles and
virtues and failings to the exclusion of other thoughts. The
result is that the same nationalism, which is the symbol of

WHAT IS CULTURE ?

361

growth for a people, becomes a symbol of the cessation of that
growth in the mind. Nationalism, when it becomes successful,
sometimes goes on spreading in an aggressive way and
becomes a danger internationally. Whatever line of thought
you follow, you arrive at the conclusion that some kind of
balance must be found. Otherwise something that was good
can turn into evil. Culture, which is essentially good, becomes
not only static but aggressive and something that breeds
conflict and hatred when looked at from a wrong point of
view. How you are to find a balance, I do not know. Apart
from the political and economic problems of the age, perhaps,
that is the greatest problem today, because behind it Uiere is
a tremendous conflict in the spirit of man and a tremendous
search for something which it cannot find. We 'urn to
economic theories because they have an undoubted
importance. It is foil) to talk of culture or c\en of God when
human beings starve and die. Before one can talk about
an) thing else one must provide the normal essentials of life
to human beings. That is where economics comes in. Human
beings today are not in the mood to tolerate this suffering and
starvation and inequality when they sec that the burden is
not equally shared. Others profit while they only bear the
burden.

We have inevitably to deal with these problems in
economic and other ways but I do think that behind it all
there is a tremendous psychological problem in the minds of
the people. It may be that some people think about it cons-
ciously and deliberately and others rather unconsciously and
dimly but that this conflict exists in the spirit of man today is
certain. How it will be resolved, I do not know. One thing
that troubles me is this: people who understand one another
more and more begin often enough to quarrel more and
more. Nevertheless, it docs not follow from this that we
should not try to understand one another. That would
amount to limiting oneself completely and that is something
which really cannot be done in the context of the modern
world. Therefore, it becomes essential that we try to under-
stand one another in the right way. The right way is
important. The right approach, the friendly approach, is

JAWAHARLAl. NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

important, because a friendly approach brings a friendly
response. I have not the shadow of a doubt that it is a funda-
mental rule of human life that, if the approach is good, the
response is good. If the approach is bad, the response is likely
to be bad, too. So, if we approach our fellow human beings or
countries in a friendly w T ay, with our minds and hearts open
and prepared to accept whatever good comes to them — and
that docs not mean surrendering something that we consider
of essential value to truth or to our own genius — then we
shall be led not only towards understanding but the right
type of understanding.

So, I shall leave you to determine what culture and
wisdom really are. We grow in learning, in knowledge and in
experience, till we have such an enormous accumulation of
them that it becomes impossible to know exactly where we
stand. We arc overwhelmed by all this and, at the same time,
somehow or other wc ha\c a feeling that all these put together
do not necessarily represent a growth in the wisdom of the
human race. I have a feeling that perhaps some people who
did not have all the advantages of modern life and modern
science were essentially wiser than most of us are. Whether
or not we shall be able in later times to combine all this
knowledge, scientific growth and betterment of the human
species with true wisdom, I do not know. It is a race between
various forces. I am reminded of the saying of a very wise
man who was a famous Greek poet:

What else is Wisdom? What of man’s endeavour or
God’s high grace, so lovely and so great?

To stand from fear set free, to breathe and wait,

To hold a hand uplifted over Hate,

And shall not Loveliness be loved for ever?

THE SPIRIT OF SCIENCE

I n the course of less than four months, wc have put up,
declared open or are going to declare open three national
laboratories. I suppose before this year is out some more

Speech at the opening ceremony of the Fuel Research Institute, Digwadih,
April 22, 1950

THE SPIRIT OF SCIENCE

S6S

national laboratories will also be started. This is a great
venture testifying to the faith which our scientists and, I hope,
our Government have in science. I suppose the putting up of
fine and attractive buildings does some service to science;
nevertheless, buildings do not make science as Dr Raman
has often reminded us. It is human beings who make science,
not bricks and mortar. Properly equipped buildings, however,
help the human being to work efficiently. It is, therefore,
desirable to have these fine laboratories for trained persons
to work in and for persons to be trained for future work.

You, Sir, referred to the spirit of science. I wonder what
exactly that spirit is and to what extent we agree or d tier in
our ideas of it. Is science, as is often supposed, a handmaiden
to industry? It certainly wants to help industry, though not
merely for the sake of helping industry but also because it
wants to create work for the nation, so that people may have
better living conditions and greater opportunities for growth.
That I suppose will be agreed to but there is something more
to it. What ultimately does science represent?

You, Sir, just referred to scientists declaring war on
nature. May I put it in a different way? We seek the co-
operation of nature, we seek to uncover the secrets of nature,
to understand them and to utilize them for the benefit of
humanity. The active principle of science is discovery. Now,
what is, if I may ask, the active principle of a social frame-
work or society? Usually, it stands for conservatism,
remaining where we are, not changing and carrying on,
though, of course, with some improvement and further
additions. Nevertheless, it is a principle of continuity rather
than of change. So, we come up against a certain inherent
conflict in society between the co-existing principles of
continuity and of conservatism and the scientific principle of
discovery which brings about change and challenges that
continuity. So the scientific worker, although he is praised
and patted on the back, is, nevertheless, not wholly approved
of, because he comes and upsets the status quo of things.
Normally speaking, science seldom really has the facilities
that it deserves except when some misfortune comes to a
country in the shape of war. Then everything has to be set

364 JAWAHARI.AL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

aside and science has its way, even though it is for an evil
purpose.

It is interesting to see this conflict between the normal
conservatism of a static society and the normal revolutionary
tendency of the scientist’s discovery which often changes the
basis of that society. It changes living conditions and the
conditions that govern human life and human survival.

I take it that most people who talk glibly of science,
including our great industrialists, think of science merely as a
kind of handmaiden to make their work easier. And so it is.
Of course, it does make their work easier. It adds to the
wealth of the nation and betters conditions. All this science
does do. But surely science is something more than that. The
history of science shows that it does not simply better the old.
It sometimes upsets the old. It does not merely add new
truths to the old ones but sometimes the new truth it discovers
disintegrates some part of the old truths and thereby upsets
the way of men’s thinking and the way of their lives. Science,
therefore, does not merely repeat the old in better ways or
add to the old but creates something that is new to the world
and to human consciousness.

If we pursue this line of thought, what exactly does the
spirit of science mean? It means many things. It means not
only accepting the fresh truth that science may bring, not
only improving the old but being prepared to upset the old
if it goes against that spirit. It also means no) being tied down
to something that is old because it is okl, because we have
carried on with it but being able to accept its disintegration;
it means not being tied down to a social fabric or an industrial
fabric or an economic fabric if it goes against the new dis-
covery.

Whatever they may say, most countries normally do not
like to change. The human being is essentially a conservative
animal. He is used to certain ways of life and any one trying
to change them meets with his disapproval. Nevertheless,
change comes and people have to adapt themselves to it; they
have done so in the past. All countries, as I said, are normally
conservative. But I imagine that our country is more than
normally conservative. It is for this reason that I venture to

THE SPIRIT OF SCIENCE

965

place these thoughts before you. I find a curious hiatus in
people’s thinking. I find it even in the thinking of scientists
who praise science and practise it in the laboratory but
discard the ways of science, its method of approach and the
spirit of science in everything else they do in life. They become
completely unscientific. If we approach science in the proper
way, it does some good and there is no doubt that it will
always do some good. It teaches us new ways of doing things.
Perhaps, it improves our conditions of industrial life but the
basic thing that science should do is to teach us to think
straight, to act straight and not to be afraid of discarding
anything or of accepting anything, provided the'e are
sufficient reasons for doing so. I should like our country to
understand and appreciate that idea all the mote, because in
the realm of thought our country in the past has, in a sense,
been singularly free and it has not hesitated to look down the
deep well of liutli whatever it might contain. Nevertheless,
in spite ol such a free mind, our country enc umbered itself
to such an extent in matters of social practice that its growth
was hindered and is hindered in a hundred ways even today.
Our customs are just ways of looking at little things that
govern our lives and have no significant meaning. Even then,
these customs come in our way. Now that we have attained
independence, there is naturally a resurgence of all kinds of
new forces, both good and bad; good forces are, of course,
liberated by a sense of freedom but along with them there are
also a number of forces which, under the guise of what people
call culture, narrow our minds and our outlook. These forces
are essentially a restriction and denial of any real kind of
culture. Culture is the widening of the mind and of the spirit.
It is never a narrowing of the mind or a restriction of the
human spirit or of the country’s spirit. Therefore, if we look
at science in the real way and if we think of these research
institutes and laboratories in a fundamental sense, then they
are something more than just little ways of improving things
and of finding out how this or that should be done. Of course,
we have to do that, too. But these institutes must gradually
affect our minds, not only the minds of the young men and
young women who would work heie but also the minds of

366 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

others, more specially the minds of the rising generation,
so that the nation may imbibe the spirit of science and be
prepared to accept the new truth, even though it has to
discard something of the old. Only then will this approach to
science bear true fruit. It is because we attach importance to
these research institutes that we have ventured to ask you,
Sir, Mr President, to take the trouble to come all the way
here to open this third of our great national laboratories and
we are very grateful to you that you have taken the trouble to
do so. 1 am sure that your visit here and the visits of the
many distinguished scientists will prove a blessing to this
institute. Besides, it will help to draw people’s attention not
only to the external applications and implications of science
but to its real value which lies in widening the spirit of man
and thereby bettering humanity at large.

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Y our Highness, I should just like to say how happy I am
to be present at the inauguration of the Science Cong-
ress. As Your Highness has said, I made rather special efforts
to be here as 1 shall be leaving for England in a few hours. I
want to tell you that certain changes have recently taken place
in the Central Government. Perhaps, you know that a new
Ministry called the Ministry of Natural Resources and
Scientific Research has been formed. I hope this will be
welcomed by this Congress and bv the eminent scientists who
are present on this occasion.

Ever since my association with the Government began, I
have felt the need for encouraging scientific work and research
and have, for that purpose, concerned myself with important
organizations like the Board of Scientific and Industrial
Research of which I am Chairman. I have also been closely
associated with the Atomic Energy Commission. That does
not mean that I know very much about science or atomic

Inaugural address at the Indian Science Congress, Bangalore, January 2, 1951

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

367

energy. But I felt and it was agreed that it would be helpful
if I were sometimes to play the part of a show boy. My
association, therefore, did help these organizations in their
dealings with the Government. I have also been, during
these past three years, Minister in charge of Scientific
Research. Now that the new Ministry of Natural Resources
and' Scientific Research has been formed, it will, of course,
include the Department of Scientific Research as also many
other important departments. My very old friend and
colleague, Sri Sri Prakasa, will be in charge of its activities.
That does not mean that I shall cease to be in charge of any-
thing. If I may say so, with all respect to my colleagues, my
over-all charge in a sense continues as far as scientific work is
concerned and I propose to take a deep interest in it.

My interest largely consists in trying to make the Indian
people anil even the Government of India conscious of
scientific work and the necessity for it. The work is not really
done by me but by my eminent colleagues here who have
helped to give such a great place to science in India. I wish
to assure you that, as far as I am concerned, I shall help in
every was the progress of scientific research and the appli-
cation of science to our problems in India.

Dr Bhatnagar has been very intimately connected with all
this work as Secretary of the Department of Scientific
Research. He will now continue that association in a larger
field and I am quite sure that this will be of great benefit
to science. 1 am particularly happy to be here today because
this session of the Science Congress is going to be presided
over by my dear friend and colleague, Dr Bhabha. It is not
for me to tell you of his achievements and plans, which are
both great. It has been a great pleasure for me to work with
him in various ways and more especially in the Atomic
Energy Commission.

I now proceed to inaugurate the 38th session of the
Indian Science Congress and the first session of the Pan-
Indian Ocean Science Congress.

THE CRISIS OF MAN

M r Chairman, Mr Director-General, Excellencies, Ladies
and Gentlemen, almost exactly two } ears ago, in this very
hall, I had the privilege of inaugurating the first session of
the Indian National Commission of UNESCO. Now we meet
here again and I am called upon to undertake the same
duty. I do so with great pleasure and consider it an honour
and a privilege that you have associated me with others in
)our work. On behalf of the Government of India, I should
like to welcome all those eminent men and women of learn-
ing and goodwill who have assembled here from various
parts of the world. T should like more specially to welcome
you, Sir, Mr Director-General, who have graced this occa-
sion with )our presence. As our distinguished Chairman
said just now, we were looking forward to having you in our
midst, to confer with you, to learn from you what we should
do and, perhaps, to make some suggestions to you and tell
you what we have in our minds. You are welcome because
}ou are the head of a great organization which holds out
promise for the future and which has already substantial
achievement to its credit. You are also welcome. Sir, if I may
say so, as the representative of a country which, though very
far away from us, seems strangely akin to us in many ways.
When we look towards that country, we see friendly eyes and
a spirit of understanding and comradeship You have played
a distinguished role in that country and as such also we
welcome you. May I say that, as Foreign Minister of our
country, it has been a great pleasure for me to have helped
recently in the exchange of Ambassadors between your
country and ours? I hope this will bring closer understanding
and co-operation between us.

In inaugurating this conference, I do not quite know
what you all expect me to say. I have been asked to come here
and address you almost in my official capacity as Prime
Minister; and I suppose I cannot easily get away from it. But
I am something other than a Prime Minister too. I am also a

Address at the UNESCO Indian National Commission, New Delhi, March 24,

1951

THE CRISIS OF MAN

human being. I hope Prime Ministers are also normally, if
not always, human beings. I often find myself struggling for
some light, for a vision of what one should do, for a glimpse
of the truth and of the pathway to the truth. You feel and I
feel that it is unbecoming for a Prime Minister to confess to
these struggles and conflicts, because a Prime Minister must
be sure, be of set purpose and should know exactly what he
should do and how he should do it. But forgetting for the
moment that I happen to be the Prime Minister of this great
country, I want for a few minutes to address you as friends in
a common quest and to share with you some of mv own
difficulties, because I feel that those difficulties are present
not only in my mind but in your minds also and pos>ibly in
minds of innumerable human beings all over the world.

UNESCO represents a great ideal. You read through its
objects, its Charter or the speeches that are made on various
occasions. You see a list of what it has done and what it seeks
to do. Most of you may criticize something here and there
but you will agree that it essentially represents a great ideal to
which every person of goodwill, Who wants this world to
progress along right lines, must necessarily subscribe.

While you discuss different phases of activity in your
different sections, a doubt arises in my mind and it is this:
how far are our different forms of activity meeting what might
be called the essential crisis within? That crisis may be
represented in many ways but essentially it is a crisis of the
spirit of man. We all suffer from it, provided we are sensitive
enough to what is happening around us.

Here, in India, many of utf grew up under two great
traditions — I may say, India grew up under two great
traditions — embodied in two mighty men, Gandhi and
Tagore. These two men gave birth to India as she is today.
We are their children in thought — very imperfect, very
foolish children but their children, nevertheless. Both of
them, though vastly different, sprang from the soil and
culture of India and are rooted in the ten thousand year old
Indian tradition — both so different but both reminding us
of the innumerable facets of India. Both were typically
Indian, both so different and yet so alike. They represented

370 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

the ideal of young India — the ideal which I had in my
young days and which possibly many people still have. And
yet I find that those two men somehow seem very distant
now. Though we speak of them very often, we have fallen
into different ways of thinking and taken to other ideals.
Instead of that mighty spirit of creative effort and faith and
hope, which those men in their own different ways
represented in the modern age, India as also other countries,
begin to represent more and more a spirit of denial and
destruction. If that is the spirit of the modern age, what will
your activities in your various sections, schools, seminars,
conferences and congresses be worth? What will they be
worth if some dark cloud were to hover above you and
envelop you at any time? This is very likely. I remember
the meeting of the League of Nations in Geneva in the year
1938. There were innumerable other organs of the League
of Nations also meeting there. At that time, Europe was
shaken by the fear of war. There were war clouds in the
Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia and all kinds of threats
and ultimatums were in the air; people rushed from London
or from Paris to this place or that. At that time, in Geneva, I
found these commissions and committees working calmly as
if they were oblivious of everything else. They could not, of
course, stop what was happening and a year later the
committees, the commissions and the League of Nations
itself were all overwhelmed by events which they could not
understand or control. I wondered then how a great organiza-
tion like the League of Nations, after twenty years or more
of very good work indeed, had been swept away by some-
thing which it could not control.

And so, a fear creeps into my mind: are all our labours
possibly going to be swept away by something totally beyond
our control? If so, is it not more desirable to control that
something or try to control it, rather than try and live in an
ivory tower, doing good work, no doubt, but doing work
which somehow does not touch the essence of things? That
is one of the difficulties that confronts me.

We have suddenly emerged into a new age. Of course,
every age is a new age but, I suppose, it is correct to say that

THE CRISIS OF MAN

S71

this age of ours is especially so; and the symbol of the age is
the atom bomb or atomic energy, if you like, but it is well to
remember that today atomic energy is thought of in terms
of atom bombs only. And if the atom bomb is the symbol of
this age, then everything is conditioned by that symbol —
mail's .-thinking, man’s fears and everything else.

We seem to live under this shadow. Are we, with the very
proud and magnificent edifice of our civilization, nearing the
afternoon or evening of this civilization? Have we lost the
creative spirit? Have we lost the energy and faith that go
with the dawn of civilizations? Can we recapture that
spirit of the dawn in this afternoon and convert it into some-
thing other than what it is today or is it inevitable that the
afternoon will be followed by the evening and then by the
shades of night? I do not know but my mind struggles with
this problem. It also struggles with the smaller problems of
the day, for we cannot ignore them. The problem of our
civilization, however, is the major question mark of the day.
How are we to meet these problems? UNESCO says, by
education, science and culture. Of course. How else? And
yet we find that education, as our distinguished Chairman
has just told us, has been leading us into wrong channels.
We find science perverted to serve evil ends. We find that
culture, instead of being something that broadens our vision
and gives us wisdom, sometimes actually narrows us and
engenders wars. It is not culture but the slogan of culture that
is used anyhow and each person who uses it means some-
thing quite different by it. Thus, the very things that ought
to help us in solving the world’s problems, namely, education,
science and culture, become barriers to that solution. How
are we to get over these difficulties? Surely, not by denying
them or by saying that education, science and culture are no
good. Certainly not, because, after all, they are the only
available means for us to forge ahead, understand and solve
these problems. Therefore, we have to adhere to them and
yet, while adhering, we have to realize that these words often
become debased in our mouths and in our activities, more
especially in the field of politics, where every noble word or
sentiment man has ever invented or thought of becomes

372

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

base coin. UNESCO, I understand, is carrying on, here in
India and possibly elsewhere, investigations into what is
called the problem of tensions. They study all kinds of ten-
sions; tensions between capital and labour, tensions between
communities, between groups and so many other tensions, of
which the world is full today. I wonder if it would not be a
worthy exercise for UNESCO to study them at Lake Success.
Why not study them at the UN headquarters? Why not
study them in the various Chancelleries of the world, since
they are the root cause of the tensions of the world today and
not those people who occasionally might, in a fit of excite-
ment, break a few heads. They are fortunately few but those
who sit in the Chancelleries are preparing to break millions
and billions of heads. How then are we going to stop that?
Surely not by studying the petty problems of the market
place or of some obscure corners of the world, when this major
problem overshadows the world. I’ am placing before you in
all humility the problems that confront me. I may tell you
that when I think of these problems, all pride of intellect
goes, because I have seen intellect prostituted to base ends.
Sometimes, intellect by itself leads to nothing. All pride of
achievement fades because of this tremendous lack of
achievement that states us in the face today. I do not know
what remains in its place. Perhaps, some pride must remain,
because, as long as there is strength, one must have some
pride in doing one’s duty, whatever the achievements might
be. Apart from the personal equation, the big question does
stare us in the face. How are we, however and wheresoever
situated, to meet this great problem in this atomic age of
ours? We find people, nations and statesmen talking in terms
of the greatest certitude about their being right and about
their undertaking some moral crusade or other for the
benefit of mankind. Sometimes, I feel that the world may
be better off if there were fewer of these modern crusaders
about. Everyone wants not only to carry on a moral crusade
in his own environment but to impose his moral crusade
upon another. When moralities or the objectives of the
moral crusades differ, conflict inevitably comes. The fact of
the matter is that in theory there is and there ought to be a

THE CRISIS OF MAN

873

great deal in common between what is considered culture and
truth. Nevertheless, the world is a place with much variety.
The great nations of the world have very different back-
grounds; their historical development has been different;
even their wants are different today. In a great part of
contemporary Asia, the primary wants are food, clothing,
housing and tolerably healthy conditions of living. You
cannot expect any high flights of culture where the primary
needs of mankind are not satisfied. People necessarily think of
these primary needs in a great part of Asia. Other countries
think differently, because of their different needs and different
backgrounds. In a country like India, we cannot forget the
great and glorious past we have had and there is no reason
why we should forget that past. We try to get rid of the burden
of that past where it is wrong or out of place to remember it.
Our roots, however, must necessarily belong to that past. The
first thing to remember is that, while the world is inevitably
developing common ways of action and thinking — because
this has become essential — , inevitably also there are going
to be differences which we must recognize and allow full
play, without trying to impose our will on others in order to
obliterate those differences. I would apply this test even to a
country like India and much more so when we talk of the
whole world. Many countries seem to think that it is their
duty to make others like themselves.

This is essentially an age of science and technological
development. This technological development goes ahead
with an ever increasing tempo and it will no doubt affect the
lives of men and, perhaps, may end up in their deaths. In
many ways, it results in a tremendous advance and we can
say with assurance that many of the problems of past history,
namely, those of food, clothing, housing and health services
and all that a human being requires, are capable of solution
today. There is enough in the world for all and more. There-
fore, the old cause of conflict no longer exists. Yet, something
is lacking. The fact is that this technological age has brought
greater conflicts in its train in spite of its promise of putting
an end to conflicts. This again is a great contradiction, for
notwithstanding the continuous talk of peaceful progress,

25-11 DPO/65

374

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

co-operation and mutual understanding among nations, we
move in contrary directions. Our knowing one another
more, instead o£ making each of us understand and appreciate
the other, often brings dislike of the other. How can we get
over these contradictions? I take it that the problem of
UNESCO is essentially this: how to get over difficulties in
order to realize its ideals? How to utilize education, science
and culture in the right way and prevent its exploitation for
wrong ends? I think that these efforts will not bring success,
unless somehow or other they can affect this other major
factor which seems to hang over world affairs today. How it
can be done, I do not know.

We live in a period of tremendous potential conflict and
every nation begins to think more and more in terms of
survival. When people think in terms of survival, it means
that they are conditioned by great fear and when the desire
for survival asserts itself, then logical thinking and the
reasoning faculties do not even function. Human beings
forget their humanity, because they are just fighting to escape
some dreadful terror, struggling to survive and they do not
care what happens or what they do in order to survive. This
applies to individuals as well as nations. This struggle for
survival, which brings out the worst in humanity, is a dread-
ful prospect. If humanity continues to think in terms of
encompassing fear and of mere survival, then fear itself will
inevitably bring out all inhuman instincts. When the real
struggle for survival comes, few may survive and, possibly,
those who survive will not be human.

You will forgive me if I have taken you somewhat outside
your normal realm of activity and thought but I have felt that
unless we think of the problem in the context of this broader
outlook and vision, perhaps, we will be caught in narrow
grooves of thought and not progress further.

ON MUSEUMS

I am grateful to you for inviting me to inaugurate this
Centenary Celebration because I am deeply interested in
museums in my own layman’s way. I am not an expert in*
anything but I have dabbled in a large number of activities.
I am interested in many things and am even interested in
experts, though from a distance. It is obvious that experts
have their use but they often think that they function only
in a world of experts, with the result that they somehow lose
touch with the common man or the layman who is not an
expert. I merely mention this, because I feel that experts
exist in some upper sphere unconnected with humanity at
large and very few persons even find their way there except,
as I said, experts.

Now, museums I think are very necessary from a variety
of points of view and some of the most exhilarating times that
I have spent have been in museums — not in this country but
chiefly in Europe — and I have always been sorry that I could
not spend more time there. What exactly a museum is and
what purpose it serves are questions which can be answered
in many ways. I suppose it is some kind of congealed history
or a bit of the past locked up in your cabinets and placed so
that you may have a glimpse of it. It is a place where you
collect beautiful objects and it is good to have beautiful
objects for people to look at. More and more people seem to
lose all idea of what beauty is and to surround themselves
with articles which certainly are not beautiful, whatever else
they may be. It is quite extraordinary how people are losing
any real appreciation of beauty. What is die reason? I am
not talking of India only but of many other countries, too;
whether it is symptomatic of the modern age or not, I do not
know; but the fact remains that we are becoming more and
more shoddy. What is worse, however, is that we sometimes
seem to take pride in this fact. Therefore, it is desirable to
collect articles of beauty. Even in a matter like children’s
toys, may I ask why they should be given horrible golliwogs

Speech at the Centenary celebration of the Madras Government Museum
and the opening of the National Art Gallery, Madras, November 27, 1951

376

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

as presents? I do not know. No doubt, children are interested
in animals and they should have them. "Why not have
beautiful things and why not train them in the appreciation
of beauty from their childhood instead of giving them toys
which are caricatures of what they see? Such toys no doubt
excite their curiosity but, at the same time, make them
insensitive to beauty. Because of this tendency, which appears
to me to be growing throughout the world, because of this
lack of appreciation of any kind of beauty, it is desirable to
collect articles of beauty from the past and the present so that
we may at least have some standard to judge by and so that
the people who come to the museums may see for a while
articles of beauty, even though they may not generally see
them in their daily lives.

There is another aspect of the museum which I called
congealed history. Do people go there just to see odd things
oddly displayed, just to see, as an oddity, something that
existed five hundred or a thousand years ago or do they go
to see something that might have significance for them even
today? I do not know how history is taught because, at
college, I hardly learnt history in the normal way. I read it
myself and, therefore, my reading was not guided by experts
at all. It was casual, though widespread, reading and I was
fascinated by it. My fascination for history was not in reading
about odd events that happened in the past but rather in
its relation to the things that led up to the present. Only
then did it become alive to me. Otherwise it would have
been an odd thing unconnected with my life or the world.
It must somehow be connected in a series — something of
the past leading to something else and that something else
leading to the present. Then alone can history live for us.

Let us apply that to the museum. A museum which is
really meant to interest and educate must be something which
connects its objects with the things the visitors are used to
seeing in their lives and in their environments. It should not
be just a symbol of the distant, unconnected past. I do not
know how far our experts think on these lines and prepare
their museums on these lines. It is not the normal
antiquarian’s view of things. An antiquarian is necessary, of

ON MUSEUMS

S77

course, to collect these antiquities but an antiquarian who
himself becomes an antique piece is not much good. He must
have some relation to the modern world. Then only can we
make antiquity a living reality in terms of the modern world.
Forgive me for these personal reflections. It seems to me
incbrrect for us to treat any period of the past as something
cut off from subsequent periods or from the present and if I
look at it that way it does not interest me much. If there is
the slightest connection between that and my present-day
thoughts and activities it is a blessing and a matter of interest
to me. I am giving these rather personal reactions, because
I think it might interest some of you, gentlemen, esp dally
those connected with museums. If I may say so tdth all
humility, the greatest danger in the world is that people, in
their zeal to specialize, lose all perspective. They become
specialists at a particular job and very fine specialists at that
but they lose the larger view of things and, therefore, perhaps
they may be said to be only specialists and nothing more.
Some of you may know these lines from Wordsworth:

A primrose by a river’s brim,

A yellow primrose was to him
And it was nothing more.

They bring to mind the botanist who studies the Latin
names of flowers but loses all sense of the beauty of flowers.
In other words, we become experts in something but lack
wisdom in everything else. In our world, which is so learned
in so many subjects, there is very little wisdom. Perhaps,
that is because we all know something about a very little part
of life and very little about the larger scheme of things.

Now, coming back to the museum, it is a collection of all
kinds of things of beauty or things of utility from the past
and present and should convey to us some idea of the larger
scheme of life. It should ultimately lead to or at least help in
an understanding of the present scheme of things. I like the
museums of antiquity but there is another type of museum
which perhaps the antiquarians consider to be of a lower
species. That is the type which may be represented by, let
us say, Deutsches Museum of Munich and some other
museums in Paris and London, where one can see modem

378

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

life, modern activity, the growth of science from the pre-
scientific period. Such museums are fascinating and contain
more education than years of courses in college or university.
They also represent something I should like to see grow as
part of general education and school or college education.

Lastly, the whole point of museums, whether they be
museums of antiquity or museums of modern life, is that
larger and larger numbers of people should visit them and
learn from them. They should not be confined to the visiting
Directors of Museums from other countries. More and more
people should come and learn and, in fact, facilities for learn-
ing should be provided. That is to say, some arrangement
should be made for lectures to be given to ordinary folk who
come there and for guides to explain to them what these
things are and arouse their interest in them, especially school
children and college boys and girls. That is the main purpose
of museums. I would not very much mind if no adult came to
the museums, because his mind is made up and is not always
capable of learning much; but in the formative period of
childhood and youth, it is essential that people should come to
museums and learn. Their minds will be affected by the
objects which they see there. I should like this aspect of
education through the museums to be developed, not by
appeals to the public but by encouraging and inviting
people to come, inviting not only the people who would
normally come but also those who would not otherwise come,
persuading them to bring their children and explaining
things to them so that they may widen their vision and feel
that the world is a bigger thing than they normally believed
it to be. As I grow old, I tend to philosophize and dole out
advice to others. But I am happy to be here to participate in
the Centenary Celebration of the oldest of India’s museums.
I hope it will flourish and expand and, if I may say so,
expand in the direction that I have indicated.

THE CONCEPT OF MAN

I am grateful to you for this opportunity of attending the
last session of this Symposium. I must apologize for not
having attended the opening session to welcome you all here.
I looked forward to it greatly, not merely to perform the
formal .function of opening but rather, as the President
suggested, to participate in some way in your discussions and
talks and to try and gather some light from those discussions.
I was greatly disappointed that I could not do so. It is good of
you to ask me to speak but I feel somewhat hesitant because
of the presence of very eminent friends who have come f r om
distant countries. There are specialists and men and women
of great experience; and for me to say something about the
great subject of your debate appears rather presumptuous to
me. If I had the chance and ihe occasion to attend some of
your sessions, I would have listened to what was said, perhaps,
sometimes participated or put a question but mostly listened.
I would have listened, because I have been anxious to find
out what you had in your mind and to find out how that
would help me to understand for myself some of the problems
that confront us. Most of us, I suppose, are burdened with
the complexity of our present-day problems. We live our day
to day lives and face our day to day difficulties but somehow
that is not enough. One seeks something behind that daily
round and tries to find out how one can solve the problems
that affect the world. For one whom circumstances have
placed in a position of great responsibility, it is particularly
difficult to avoid thinking about these problems. During the
last few weeks I have been going about this great country
and seeing multitudes of human beings, surging masses of
my countrymen and countrywomen. I have thus invariably
thought of what was going to happen to these people, what
they were thinking and in which direction they were going.
These questions apply to us also because we are in the same
boat. And then I think of the multitudes in other countries.
What about those vast masses of human beings? Some of us
here are functioning on the political plane and presuming to

Address at the UNESCO symposium, New Delhi, December 20, 1951

380

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

decide the fate of nations. How far do our decisions affect
these multitudes? Do we think of them or do we live in some
upper stratosphere of diplomats and politicians and the like,
exchanging notes and sometimes using harsh words against
one another? In the context of this mighty world, its vast
masses of human beings and the tremendous phase of transi-
tion through which we are passing, politics becomes rather
trivial. I have no particular light to throw on tire problems
that you have been discussing; rather I would like to put
some of the difficulties that I have in my mind before you and
I hope that when I have occasion to read some of the reports
of what you have been saying to each other, perhaps, those
addresses might help me to understand the methods of
solving some of these problems.

Now, one of my chief difficulties is this: somehow it
seems to me that the modern world is getting completely out
of tune with what I might call the life of the mind — I am
leaving out the life of the spirit at the moment. Yet, the
modern world is entirely the outcome of the life of the mind.
After all, it is the human mind that has produced everything
that we see around us and feel around us. Civilization is the
product of the human mind and yet, strangely enough, one
begins to feel that the function of the mind becomes less and
less important in the modern world or, at any rate, is no
longer so important as it used to be. The mind may count
for a great deal in specialized domains; it does and so we make
great progress in those specialized domains of life but,
generally speaking, the mind as a whole counts for less and
less. That is my impression. If it is a correct impression,
then there is something radically wrong with the civilization
that we are building or have built. The changes that are so
rapidly taking place emphasize other aspects of life and
somehow prevent the mind from functioning as it should and
as perhaps it used to do in the earlier periods of the world's
history. If that is true, then surely it is not a good outlook for
the world, because the very basis on which our civilization
has grown, on which man has risen step by step to the great
heights on which he stands today, the very foundation of
that edifice, is shaken.

THE CONCEPT OF MAN

581

In India we are more particularly concerned about the
primary necessities of life for our people. We are concerned
with food for our people, with clothing, shelter and housing
for our people, with education, health and so on. Unless you
have these primary necessities, it seems futile to me to talk
about the life of the mind or the life of the spirit. You cannot
talk of God to a starving person; you must give him food.
One must deal with these primary necessities, it is true.
Nevertheless, even in dealing with them one has to have some
kind of ideal or objective in view. If that ideal or objective
somehow becomes less and less connected with the growth
of the human mind, then there must be something ’ .'rong.

I do not know if what I say is true or whether you agi ee with
it and I do not know, even if it is true, what can be done to
improve it.

I am, if I may say so, a great admirer of the achieve-
ments of modern civilization, of the growth of and
applications of science and of technological growth. Humanity
has every reason to be proud of them and yet if these achieve-
ments lessen the capacity for future growth — and that will
happen if the mind deteriorates — then surely there is some-
thing wrong about this process. It is obvious that ultimately
the mind should dominate. I am not mentioning the spirit
again but that comes into the picture, too. If the world suffers
from mental deterioration or from moral degradation, then
something goes wrong at the very root of civilization or
culture. Even though that civilization may drag out for a
considerable period, it grows less and less vital and ultimately
tumbles down. When I look back on the periods of past
history, I find certain periods very outstanding. They show
great achievements of the human mind, while some others
do not. One finds races achieving a high level and then
apparently fading away — at least fading away from the
point of view of their achievements. And so I wonder whether
something that led to the fading away of relatively high
cultures is not happening today and producing an inner
weakness in the structure of our modern civilization.

Then the question arises in my mind as to which environ-
ment is likely to produce the best type of human being.

382

JAWAHARLAl. NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

You talk about education and that obviously is very
important. But apart from school or college education, the
entire environment that surrounds us naturally affects the
development of the human being. What kind of environ-
ment has produced these great ages of history? Are we
going towards that environment or going away from it, in
spite of the great progress that we have made in many
departments of human life? The Industrial Revolution
that started about 200 years ago brought about enormous
changes, largely for the good. That process, I take it,
is continuing and the tempo of change becomes faster and
faster. Where is it leading us to? It has led us in one
direction towards great conflicts and possibly greater conflicts
are in store for us which threaten to engulf a large part of
humanity in a common cataclysm.

There is an essential contradiction in this race between
progress and building up on the one hand and this element on
the other, which is likely to destroy all that we have built
up. Most of us seem to live as if both are inevitable and have
to be put up with. It is very odd that we wish to build and
build and build and at the same time look forward to the
possible destruction of all that we build. The destruction
may externally be through war but what is perhaps more
dangerous is the inner destruction of the mind and spirit,
after which the destruction of the outer emblems cf the mind
and spirit may follow. Is it, I wonder, some resultant of the
growth of the Industrial Revolution that is over-reaching
itself? Have we lost touch with the roots that give strength
to a race, humanity or the individual just as a city dweller,
perhaps, loses touch with the soil and sometimes even with
the sun, living an artificial life in comfort and even in luxury?
He lacks something that is vital to the human being. So
whole races begin more and more to live an artificial life,
cut off, if I may say so, from the soil and the sun. Is
that not so? These ideas trouble me. This growth of a
mechanical civilization, which has obviously brought great
triumphs and helped the world so much, gradually affects
the man and the mind. The mind which produced the
machine to help itself gradually becomes a slave of that

THE CONCEPT OF MAN

583

machine and we progressively become a mechanically minded
race.

I suppose the vitality of a group, an individual or a society
is measured by the extent to which it possesses courage and,
above all, creative imagination. If that creative imagination
is. lacking, our growth becomes more and more stunted,
which is a sign of decay. What then is happening today?
Are we trying to improve in this respect or are we merely
functioning somewhere on the surface without touching the
reality which is afflicting the world and which may result in
political conflict, in economic warfare or in world war?

So, when there are discussions on the concept of ir, an as
visualized in the Eastern ideal or the Western ideal, they
interest me greatly from a historical point of view and from
a cultural point of view, although I have always resisted
this idea of dividing the world into the Orient and the
Occident. I do not believe in sucli divisions. There have, of
course, been differences in racial and national outlook and in
ideals but to talk of the East and the West as such has little
meaning. The modern West, meaning thereby a great part of
Europe and tire Americas, has, more especially during the
last 200 years or so, developed a particular type of civilization
which is based on certain traditions derived from Greece and
Rome. It is, however, the tremendous industrial growth that
has made the West what it is. I can see the difference between
an industrialized and a non-industrialized country. I think
the difference, say between India and Europe in the Middle
Ages, would not have been very great and would have
been comparable to the difference between any of the great
countries of Asia today.

I feel that we think wrongly because we are misled in our
approach. Differences have crept in and been intensified by
this process of industrialization and mechanization, which
has promoted material well-being tremendously and which
has been a blessing to humanity. At the same time, it is
corroding the life of the mind and thereby encouraging a
process of self-destruction. I am not, for the moment, talking
or thinking about wars and the like. We have seen in
history races come up and gradually fade away, in Asia, in

384

JAWAJIARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

Europe and other places. Are we witnessing the same thing
today ?

It may be that this will not take effect in our life-time. In
the past anyway, one great consolation was that things
happened only in one particular quarter of the world. If there
was a collapse in one part of the world, the other part carried
on. Now, the whole world hangs together in life and death
so that if this civilization fades away or collapses it will take
practically the whole world down with it. No part of it will
be left to survive as it could in olden times. During the
so-called Dark Ages of Europe, there were bright periods in
Asia, in China, in India, in the Middle East and elsewhere.
In the old days, if progress was limited, disaster was also
limited in extent and intensity. Today, when we have arrived
at a period of great progress, we have also arrived at a period
of great disaster and it is a little difficult for us to choose a
middle way which would enable us to achieve a little progress
and, at the same time, to limit the scope of disaster. That is
the major question. A person who has to carry a burden of
responsibility is greatly troubled by the practical aspects of
this question. I should have liked your conference to throw
light on this question. Am I right in saying that the mental
life of the world is in a process of deterioration, chiefly because
the environment that has been created by the industrial
revolution does not give time or opportunity to individuals
to think? I do not deny that today there are many great
thinkers but it is quite likely that they might be submerged
in the mass of unthinking humanity.

We are dealing with and talking a great deal about
democracy and I have little doubt that democracy is the
best of all the various methods available to us for the
governance of human beings. At the same time, we are
seeing today — by today I mean the last two decades or so —
the emergence of democracy in a somewhat uncontrolled
form. When we think of democracy, we normally think of
it in the rather limited sense of the 19th century or the early
20th century use of the term. Owing to the remarkable
technological growth, something has happened since then
and meanwhile democracy has also spread. The result is that

THE CONCEPT OF MAN

385

we have vast masses of human beings brought up by the
industrial revolution, who are not encouraged or given an
opportunity to think much. They live a life which, from the
point of view of physical comfort, is incomparably better
than it has been in any previous generation but they seldom
have a- chance to think. And yet in a democratic system, it
is this vast mass of human beings that will ultimately govern
or elect those who govern.

Are they likely to elect more or less the sort of persons
they need? That becomes a little doubtful. And I think it
may be said without offence — and I certainly can say without
offence, for I belong to that tribe of politicians — th it the
quality of men who are selected by this modern democratic
method of adult suffrage gradually deteriorates. There are
outstanding individuals chosen, no doubt, but their quality
does deteriorate because of this lack of thinking and because
of the application of modern methods of propaganda. All
the noise and din and the machinery of advertisement prevent
men from thinking. They react to this din and noise
by producing a dictator or a dumb politician, who is insensi-
tive, who can stand all the din and noise in the world and
yet remain standing on his two feet. He gets elected while
his rival collapses because he cannot stand all this din. It is
an extraordinary state of affairs. It is all very well for us to
praise the growth of democracy and I am all for it. The
point that I wish to make is not in regard to democracy but
rather in regard to the fact that modern life does not
encourage the life of the mind. If the life of the mind is not
encouraged, then inevitably civilization deteriorates, the
race deteriorates and ultimately both collapse in some big
cataclysm or just fade away and become as other races and
civilizations have become.

PAST AND PRESENT

M R Chairman, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, I have
accepted with pleasure the task of inaugurating the
National Art Treasures Fund, not because I happen to be a
particularly suitable person in matters connected with art but
because I greatly admire it, albeit as an inexpert layman. I
consider it very important that the artistic and aesthetic side of
a nation’s growth should be given prominence. Naturally, a
government has to deal largely with what might be called the
primary needs of the people. It can hardly think of anything
else before the primary needs are satisfied. Nevertheless, no
country and no people can subsist only on primary needs;
they certainly cannot grow. Apart from food, one has also
to provide them with other fare — clothing and other
necessities of life. After all, when we talk of the growth of a
people, of civilization, of cultural life, we think of all manner
of things, besides these primary needs. We think of their
mental, intellectual and spiritual growth and of the artistic
and aesthetic needs of their lives. We, perhaps, also think
of the danger that some of these primary needs of life might
suffer at the hands of other tendencies which are certainly
very important, provided they are kept within proper bounds
and not allowed to become the masters of human destiny.

Delhi has got no proper museum. We have some small
collections here that are good but they are practically nothing
compared with the great museums of Europe and America.
And that is unfortunate for all of us, more especially for our
children who receive their ideas of beauty or lack of beauty
from such institutions. If I may say so with all respect, the
governmental structures of Delhi are not all very beautiful to
look at, although some of them are obviously meant to
impress. If you want to see architectural beauty in India,
you have to go back to the buildings of another age. So, it is
important to have museums, not only to keep treasures intact
and make them accessible but also to enable the rising
generations to look at them, so that they can have some idea

Speech at the inauguration of the National Art Treasures Fund, New
Delhi, February 23, 1952

PAST AND PRESENT

S87

of India in regard to the finer aspects of life. Personally, I
should imagine that any proper teaching of history would
include the artistic and cultural development of a people
as an essential element. Without that, history becomes a
string of events, of battles and of kings, which can neither
inspire.- nor do much good to anybody. It does not really
matter very much whether you remember the names of
kings or not but it is important that you remember the artistic
achievements of a race.

I believe, we have some good museums in India, though
they can hardly be compared with the great museums and
galleries of the West. The type of great art we have has essen-
tially to be seen on the site itself. It is not normally thing
that can be placed in a museum, sometimes because if is part
of big structures and sometimes because it has almost grown
out of the very rocks. It is part of the natural scene like some
of our great sculptures, caves and frescoes. It is right that
these places should become, even more so than they are now,
places of artistic pilgrimage for us so that we may learn from
them not only something of the past but something of the
grace of life which can, perhaps, affect our present life also.
We cannot transport these big architectural monuments but
there are still plenty of art treasures in India which can be
kept together. It is important that we should keep these things
not only for ourselves but also for our friends from outside
India who may come here and who may like to see them
assembled in a few places rather than to have to hunt for
them in odd places all over India.

I think that the step which has been proposed is an
important one in this direction, because art, like some other
things, should not become just a governmental affair and
should not depend entirely on the encouragement of the
government. Governments should, of course, encourage it but
governments have a peculiar way of working and they some-
how become rigid and lose touch with the popular mind.
Therefore, it is right that we should bring in others into this
organization; in fact, if I may say so, we should give the lead
to those of our people who love art to build up these great art
collections.

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES I949-195S

Here is this city of New Delhi and Old Delhi is nearby.
There are many things in Old Delhi which, perhaps, many
of us and many of you do not like. They are certainly capable
of improvement. Nevertheless, there are many things in
Old Delhi, old buildings, for instance, which stand out. But
there is something more than that. There is the spirit and the
genius of an ancient city, where almost every stone tells you a
story, where history is embedded even in the dirty lanes — the
history of events and the history of a people in their happi-
ness and sorrow through long ages past. There is this ancient
city with much that is good and much that is bad: but it has
a definite and positive atmosphere which you can feel in your
bones if you go there, especially if you know something about
the tremendous past of Old Delhi which is supposed to be
the seventh city of Delhi. New Delhi attracts large numbers
of people for business or pleasure and it has some big and
impressive buildings and plenty of offices. Large numbers
of people, directly or indirectly concerned with the adminis-
tration of India, sit in these offices and work away. But New
Delhi has always seemed to me to be a place without a soul
and without spirit. In spite of its large structures of stone
and brick and in spite of a certain attractiveness which some
of the New Delhi buildings may possess, New Delhi is not an
attractive place. This is not so because of the buildings; I
am talking more of the atmosphere that surrounds it. Now,
you cannot develop the right atmosphere in a city too quickly.
But, at any rate, you can lay the foundation for it; you can
help that atmosphere to grow.

Art galleries and museums in a great city are like windows
which look out on the broader, richer and deeper things of
life. I feel somewhat ashamed that in this great capital of
India we have nothing really worthy of being called a
museum. We have plenty of good things. There is a place
called "The Central Museum of Asian Antiquities.” Once
I went there and found that the last visitor had come three
months ago. Well, that is really odd. It struck me as odd
that, on an average, there should be only one visitor every
three months to the Museum of Asian Antiquities. When
I went there, naturally, the people in charge were somewhat

PAST AND PRESENT

589

upset — they were not expecting visitors and they had to
be sent for from all over the place. People were working
in an office in a musty and dusty atmosphere. That is the
way in which a typical governmental museum functions, ft
is not interested in the public seeing the exhibits; it is
interested in ticketing and docketing and presenting a report
at the end. Now, even that may have some value for the
future. But certainly the value it has in the present is practi-
cally nil, because the museum is not a part of the life of the
people but merely of the officials who sit there. The whole
idea of museums somehow seems to be unconnected with
the life of our people. It lives in the upper atmosphere of
officials. That is not good enough and the question arises
how we can make museums a vital part of our people’s lives,
of the lives of our school children and of college boys and
girls who can come and see and learn from them and be
inspired by objects of art and thus develop their own creative
talents by looking at the great creations of the past. There-
fore, I greatly welcome the creation of this Fund in the hope
that it will lead to the creation of that atmosphere even in
this official ridden city of New Delhi as also in the other
great cities of India. I should like the whole country to be
dotted with museums. They cannot all be very big; you
cannot spread out the treasures all over the country. They
have to remain more or less concentrated to be properly
looked after. They can be duplicated to some extent at other
places, too. What I am anxious about is this: every child of
India should see something of these artistic treasures, should
understand something that has gone to build up India,
should assimilate, even if in a small measure, the genius of
India, which, adapted to the modern conditions, should make
the country grow.

26—11 DPD/65

THE WAY TO SPIRITUAL REVIVAL

I n this solemn gathering of Bhikkus and Buddhist scholars
from all over the world, I see something of history. This
Conference has a deep significance for us in India and must
have the same significance for the whole world because the
latter is at a turning point in history. The message of the
Buddha may well solve the problems of our troubled and
tormented world. I came to Sanchi, not to give you a message
but to search for something myself. In this torn and distorted
world, I am a very confused person. I see no light and often
stumble. I try to search for what is lacking in me and to find
out what is wanted of me by my country and my people.

History today has ceased to be the history of this country
or that. It has become the history of mankind because we are
all tied up together in a common fate.

In India, as in other countries, great lights have shone
to show us the right way. Not only has India been the scene of
these great teachings but she has also sent them abroad to
light up the darkness in other countries. The message that the
Buddha gave 2,500 years ago shed its light not only on India
or Asia but on the whole world.

The question that inevitably suggests itself is, how far can
the great message of the Buddha apply to the present-day
world? Perhaps it may apply, perhaps, it may not; but I do
know that if we follow the principles enunciated by the
Buddha, we will ultimately win peace and tranquillity for
the world. For all we know we may be sowing such seeds in
this Conference as will flower for the good of humanity.

Message to the International Buddhist Cultural Conference, Sanchi,
November 29, 1952

TO THE UNIVERSITIES

ENDS AND MEANS

I have come to you not so much in my capacity as Prime
Minister of a great country or a politician but rather as a
humble seeker after truth and as one who has continuously
struggled to find the way, not always with success, to fit
action to the objectives and ideals that he has held The
process is always difficult but it becomes increasingly so in
this world of conflict and passion. Politicians have to deal
with day to day problems and they seek immediate re nedies.
Philosophers think of ultimate objectives and are apt to lose
touch with the day to day world and its problems. Neither
approach appears to be adequate by itself. Is it possible to
combine those two approaches and function aha the manner
of Plato's philosopher-kings? You, Sir, who have had the
experience of the role of a great man of action and also that
of a philosopher as head of this university, should be able to
help us to answer this question.

In this world of incessant and feverish activity, men have
little time to think, much less to consider ideals and objectives.
Yet, how are we to act, even in the present, unless we know
which way we are going and what our objectives are? It is
only in the peaceful atmosphere of a university that these
basic problems can be adequately considered. It is only
when the young men qnd women, who are in the university
today and on whom the burden of life's problems will fall
tomorrow, learn to have clear objectives and standards of
values that there is hope for the next generation. The past
generation produced some great men but as a generation it
led the world repeatedly to disaster. Two world wars are the
price that has been paid for the lack of wisdom on man’s
part in this generation. It is a terrible price and the tragedy
of it is that, even after the price has been paid, we have

Address on the occasion of the conferment of the decree of Doctor of
Laws at Columbia University, New York, October 17. 1949

392 JAWAHARLAI. NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

not purchased real peace or a cessation of conflict and an
even deeper tragedy is that mankind does not profit by its
experience and continues to go the same way that led
previously to disaster.

We have had wars and we have had victory and we have
celebrated that victory; yet, what is victory and how do we
measure it? A war is fought presumably to gain certain
objectives. The defeat of the enemy is not by itself an objective
but rather the removal of an obstruction towards the attain-
ment of the objective. If that objective is not attained, then
that victory over the enemy brings only negative relief and
indeed is not a real victory. We have seen, however, that the
aim in wars is almost entirely to defeat the enemy and
the other and real objective is often forgotten. The result
has been that the victory attained by defeating the enemy
has only been a very partial one and has not solved the real
problem; if it has solved the immediate problem, it has, at
the same time, given rise to many other and sometimes worse
problems. Therefore, it becomes necessary to have the real
objective clear in our minds at all times whether in war or in
peace and always to aim at achieving the objective.

I think also that there is always a close and intimate
relationship between the end we aim at and the means
adopted to attain it. Even if the end is right but the means
are w r rong, it will vitiate the end or divert us in a wrong
direction. Means and ends are thus intimately and inextric-
ably connected and cannot be separated. That, indeed, has
been the lesson of old taught us by many great men in the
past but unfortunately it is seldom remembered.

I am venturing to place some of these ideas before you,
not because they are novel but because they have impressed
themselves upon me in the course of my life which has been
spent in alternating periods of incessant activity and conflict
and enforced leisure. The great leader of my country,
Mahatma Gandhi, under whose inspiration and sheltering
care I grew up, always laid stress on moral values and warned
us never to subordinate means to ends. We were not worthy
of him and yet, to the best of our ability, we tried to follow
his teaching. Even the limited extent to which we could

ENDS AND MEANS

S9S

follow his teaching yielded rich results. After a generation of
intense struggle with a great and powerful nation, we achieved
success and, perhaps, the most significant part of it, for which
credit is due to both parties, was the manner of its achieve-
ment. History hardly affords a parallel to the solution of
su.ch a conflict in a peaceful way, followed by friendly and co-
operative relations. It is astonishing how rapidly bitterness and
ill will between the two nations have faded away, giving place
to co-operation. And we in India have decided of our own free
will to continue this co-operation as an independent nation.

I would not presume to offer advice to other and more
experienced nations in any way. But may I suggest foi your
consideration that there is some lesson in India’s peaceful
revolution which might be applied to the larger p.oblems
before the world today? That revolution demonstrated to
us that physical force need not necessarily be the arbiter of
man’s destiny and that the method of waging i struggle and
the way of its termination are of paramount importance.
Past history shows us the important part that physical force
has played. But it also shows us that no such force can
ultimately ignore the moral forces of the world; and if it
attempts to do so, it does so at its peril. Today, this problem
faces us in all its intensity, because the weapons that physical
force has at its disposal are terrible to contemplate. Must the
twentieth century differ from primitive barbarism only in
the destructive efficacy of the weapons that man’s ingenuity
has invented for man’s destruction? I do believe, in
accordance with my master’s teaching, that there is another
way to meet this situation and solve the problem that faces us.

I realize that a statesman or a man who has to deal with
public affairs cannot ignore realities and cannot act in terms
of abstract truth. His activity is always limited by the degree
of receptivity of the truth by his fellow-men. Nevertheless,
the basic truth remains truth and is always to be kept in view
and, as far as possible, it should guide our actions. Otherwise
we get caught up in a vicious circle of evil when one evil
action leads to another.

India is a very old country with a great past. But she is a
new country also with new urges and desires. Since August

894

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

1947, she has been in a position to pursue a foreign policy
of her own. She was limited by the realities of the situation
which we could not ignore or overcome. But even so, she
could not forget the lesson of her great leader. She has tried
to adapt, however imperfectly, theory to reality in so far as
she could. In the family of nations she was a newcomer and
could not influence them greatly to begin with. But she had
a certain advantage. She had great potential resources that
could, no doubt, increase her power and influence. A greater
advantage lay in the fact that she was not fettered by the
past, by old enmities or old ties, by historic claims or tradi-
tional rivalries. Even against her former rulers there was no
bitterness left. Thus, India came into the family of nations
with no prejudices or enmities, ready to welcome and be
welcomed. Inevitably, she had to consider her foreign
policy in terms of enlightened self-interest but at the same
time she brought to it a touch of her idealism. Thus, she
has tried to combine idealism with national interest. The
main objectives of that policy are: the pursuit of peace, not
through alignment with any major power or group of powers
but through an independent approach to each controversial
or disputed issues, the liberation of subject peoples, the main-
tenance of freedom, both national and individual, the
elimination of racial discrimination and the elimination of
want, disease and ignorance which afflict the greater part
of the world’s population. I am asked frequently why India
does not align herself with a particular nation or a group of
nations and told that because we have refrained from doing
so we are sitting on the fence. The question and the comment
are easily understood, because in times of crisis it is not
unnatural for those who are involved in it deeply to regard
calm objectivity in others as irrational, short-sighted, negative,
unreal or even unmanly. But I should like to make it clear
that the policy India has sought to pursue is not a negative
and neutral policy. It is a positive and a vital policy that
flows from our struggle for freedom and from the teaching of
Mahatma Gandhi. Peace is not only an absolute necessity
for us in India in order to progress and develop but is also
of paramount importance to the world. How can that peace

ENDS AND MEANS

395

be preserved? Not by surrendering to aggression, not by
compromising with evil or injustice but also not by talking
and preparing for war! Aggression has to be met, for it
endangers peace. At the same time, the lesson of the last two
wars has to be remembered and it seems to me astonishing
that, in spite of that lesson, we go the same way. The very
process of marshalling the world into two hostile camps
precipitates the conflict which it has sought to avoid. It
produces a sense of terrible fear, and that fear darkens men’s
minds and leads them into wrong courses. There is perhaps
nothing so bad and so dangerous in life as fear. As a great
President of the United States said, there is nothing really
to fear except fear itself.

Our problem, therefore, becomes one of lessening and
ultimately putting an end to this fear. That will not happen
if all the world takes sides and talks of war. War becomes
almost certain then.

We are a member of the family of nations and we have no
wish to shirk any of the obligations and burdens of that mem-
bership. We have accepted fully the obligations of member-
ship in the United Nations and intend to abide by them.
We wish to make our full contribution to the common store
and to render our full measure of service. But that can only
be done effectively in our own way and of our own choice.
We believe passionately in the democratic method and we
seek to enlarge the bounds of democracy both on the political
and the economic plane, for no democracy can exist for long
in the midst of want and poverty and inequality. Our imme-
diate needs are economic betterment and raising the
standards of our people. The more we succeed in this, the
more we can serve the cause of peace in the world. We are
fully aware of our weaknesses and failings and claim no
superior virtue; but we do not wish to forfeit the advantage
that our present detachment gives us. We believe that the
maintenance of that detachment is not only in our interest
but also in the interest of world peace and freedom. That
detachment is neither isolationism nor indifference nor
neutrality when peace or freedom is threatened. When man’s
liberty or peace is in danger we cannot and shall not be

396

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

neutral; neutrality then would be a betrayal of what we
have fought for and stand for.

If we seek to ensure peace we must attack the root causes
of war and not merely the symptoms. What are the under-
lying causes of war in the modern world?

One of the basic causes is the domination of one country
by another or an attempt to dominate. Large parts of Asia
were ruled till recently by foreign and chiefly European
Powers. We ourselves were part of the British Empire, as were
also Pakistan, Ceylon and Burma. France, Holland and
Portugal still have territories over which they rule. But the
rising tide of nationalism and the love of independence have
submerged most of the Western Empires in Asia. In Indonesia,
I hope that there will soon be an independent Sovereign
State. We hope also that French Indo-China will achieve
freedom and peace before long under a government of its
own choice. Much of Africa, however, is subject to foreign
Powers, some of whom still attempt to enlarge their
dominions. It is clear that all remaining vestiges of
imperialism and colonialism will have to disappear.

Secondly, there is the problem of racial relations. The
progress of some races in knowledge or in invention, their
success in war and conquest, has tempted them to believe
that they are racially superior and has led them to treat
other nations with contempt. A recent example of this was
the horrible attempt, so largely successful, to exterminate the
Jews. In Asia and Africa, racial superiority has been most
widely and most insolently exhibited. It is forgotten that
nearly all the great religions of mankind arose in the East
and that wonderful civilizations grew up there when Europe
and America were still unknown to history. The West has
too often despised the Asian and the African and still, in
many places, denies them not only equality of rights but
even common humanity and kindliness. This is one of the
great danger points of our modern world; and now that
Asia and Africa are shaking off their torpor and arousing
themselves, out of this evil may come a conflagration of which
no man can see the range of consequences. One of your
greatest men said that this country cannot exist half slave

ENDS AND MEANS

397

and half free. The world cannot long maintain peace if half
of it is enslaved and despised. The problem is not always
simple nor can it be solved by a resolution or a decree. Unless
there is a firm and sincere determination to solve it, there
will be no peace.

. The third reason for war and revolution is the misery and
want of millions of people in many countries and, in parti-
cular, in Asia and Africa. In the West, though the war has
brought much misery and many difficulties, the common
man generally lives in some measure of comfort — he has
food, clothing and shelter to some extent. The basic problem
of the East, therefore, is to obtain these necessaries of l.fe. If
they are lacking, then there is the apathy of despair oi the
destructive rage of the revolutionary. Political subjection,
racial inequality, economic inequality and misery — these
are the evils that we have to remove if we would ensure peace.
If we can offer no remedy, then other cries and slogans will
make an appeal to the minds of the people.

Many of the countries of Asia have entered the family of
nations; others we hope will soon find a place in this circle.
We have the same hopes for the countries of Africa. This
process should proceed rapidly and America and Europe
should use their great influence and power to facilitate it.
We see before us vast changes taking place, not only in the
political and economic spheres but even more so in the minds
of men. Asia is becoming dynamic again and is passionately
eager to progress and raise the economic standards of her
vast masses. This awakening of a giant continent is of the
greatest importance to the future of mankind and requires
imaginative statesmanship of a high order. The problems
of this awakening will not be solved by looking at it with
fear or in a spirit of isolationism by any of us. It requires a
friendly and understanding approach, clear objectives and a
common effort to realize them. The colossal expenditure of
energy and resources on armaments is an outstanding feature
of many national budgets today but that does not solve
the problem of world peace. Perhaps, even a fraction
of that outlay, utilized in other ways and for other purposes,
will provide a more enduring basis for peace and happiness.

398 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

That is India’s view, offered in all friendliness to all
thinking men and women, to all persons of goodwill in the
name of our common humanity. That view is not based on
wishful thinking but on a deep consideration of the problems
that afflict us all, and on its merits I venture to place it before
you.

I should like to add a few words, Sir. I have been deeply
moved by what you have said, by what was said about me
in the previous citation and I have felt very humble as I
listened to these remarks.

The scene that I see here under your distinguished presi-
dentship will long remain in my mind. Indeed, I do not
think that I shall ever forget it. I shall remember the scene
and above all I shall remember the great courtesy, kindliness
and generosity with which you have received me here and
made me one of yourselves.

I shall prize the honour of being a fellow member with
you of this great University, above the other honours that have
come my way. I shall prize it, not only in my individual capa-
city as I believe that this honour was, perhaps, meant for
more than an individual and that, for the moment, you have
treated me not as an individual but also as a symbol for and
representative of India. And here, Sir, forgetting myself for a
moment, I thank you on behalf of iny country and my people.

THE GANDHIAN TECHNIQUE

Y ou know that during the last thirty years or so, we carried
on rather intensively our campaign for India’s freedom.
We did not begin it; it was there. It had been continued for
generations before us but it came more to the world's notice
then, because a world figure stepped into the arena of Indian
politics — that is, Mahatma Gandhi. And he produced a very
remarkable change in India.

Address at the University of Chicago, October 27, 1949

THE GANDHIAN TECHNIQUE

399

I was, of course, much younger then but still I have the
most vivid memories of that change, because it affected me as
it affected millions of our people. It was a strange change
that came over us. We were at that time a very frustrated
people, hankering and yearning for freedom and not knowing
what to do about it. We were helpless, unarmed, unorganized
in any proper way and totally incapable, as it seemed, of
facing a great imperial Power which had been entrenched in
our country for over a hundied and fifty years. Further, this
was a Power which was not superficially there, merely by
force of arms but which had dug down deep into the roots
of India. It seemed an cxtiaoidinarily difficult t..sk to
remove it.

Some of our young men, in the depths of their frustration,
took to violent courses that wcie completely futile. Individual
acts of terrorism took place, which meant nothing at all in the
wider context of things. On the other hand, the politics of
some of our leaders then was so feeble that it could produce
no result. So between the two, we did not know what we
could do. It seemed degrading to follow the rather humiliat-
ing line which some of the leaders of Indian public life in
those days recommended; and, on the other hand, it seemed
completely wrong and futile to adopt the terrorist method
which, apart from being bad in itself, could not possibly gain
any results.

At that time, Gandhi came on the scene and he offered a
way of political action to us. It was an odd way — a new way.
What he said was not new in its essence. Great men had
said it previously but there was a difference in that he applied
that teaching to mass political action. Something which
the individual had been taught to do in his individual life
was suddenly sought to be adopted for mass action — and
mass action in a vast country of people who, from the
educational point of view, were illiterate, untrained and
thoroughly frightened; people who were obsessed with fear
and who (if I may refer to the peasantry of our country which
formed about 80 per cent of our population) were kicked
and cuffed by everybody who came in contact with them,
whether it was a governmental agency or the moneylender

400

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1955

Whoever it was, they were treated badly. They never had
any relief from the tremendous burden they endured.

Well, Gandhi came and he told them that there was a way
out — a way of achieving freedom. ‘First of all,’ he said, ‘shed
your fear. Do not be afraid, and then act in a united way but
always peacefully. Do not bear any ill will in your hearts
against your opponent. You are fighting a system, not an
individual, not a race, not the people of another country.
You are fighting the imperialist system or the colonial system.’

Now, it was not very easy for us to understand all this;
and much more difficult it must have been for others, our
peasantry, for instance. But the fact remains that there was
some power in his voice, something in him which seemed to
infuse other people with courage and make them feel that this
man was not an empty talker, that he meant what he said
and that he would be able to ‘deliver the goods’, if I may put
it so.

Almost magically, his influence spread. He was well
known before also but not in this particular way. And within
a few months we saw a change come over our countryside.
The peasantry began to behave differently. It straightened
its back. It could look you in the face. It had self-confidence
and self-reliance. Now, this did not happen automatically,
of course, for Gandhi’s message was carried to these peasants
in the countryside by tens of thousands of young men and
young women. First of all they went to the people who
became enthusiastic about it and accepted it. Within a few
months, the whole aspect of India changed.

Now, it is simple enough to say, ‘Do not be afraid.’ There
is nothing magical about that. Of what were we afraid?
What is a person normally afraid of? Many things. We
were afraid of being put in prison. We were afraid of our
property being confiscated for sedition. We were afraid, if
you like, of being shot at and killed as rebels. Well, Gandhi
argued with us, ‘After all, if you are so frightfully keen on
freedom, what does it matter if you go to prison, if your
property is confiscated or even if you are killed? It does not
matter much, because you will get something infinitely more.
Apart from serving for a great cause and apart from possibly

it Iht apt Hint* oj thx mu
\ ihata at Sanchi , \oitmhn 1952

Addressing the fvsl meeting of tk

)i dopvunl Counit l t November 1952

In a field headquarters during
military exercises, April 1953

With Sri Mahavir Tyagi , addressing officers of the
Indian Army proceeding to Korea . August 1953

THE GANDHIAN TECHNIQUE

401

achieving results, the mere act of doing this will fill you with
a certain satisfaction and joy.’

Somehow or other that voice seemed to convince masses
of people; and there came about a tremendous change.

Thus started in India what might be called the ‘Gandhi
era’, in .our politics, which lasted until his death and which,
in some form or other, will always continue. I mention this
so that you may have some kind of a picture of how we
behaved. Large numbers of us gave up our normal profes-
sions and avocations and went to the villages preaching this
gospel. We also preached other things which our political
organization demanded and we forgot almost ever} thing
else that we used to do. Our lives changed, no: very
deliberately — they simply changed, automaticalb and
completely, so much so that it was a little difficult for us even
to interest ourselves in those activities with which we had
been previously associated. We were absorbed in the new
activity of the moment — and not just for a moment but
for years.

Obviously, we could not have done so if we did not find a
great deal of satisfaction in it. We did find satisfaction; and
when people imagine that I have gone through a great deal of
pain and suffering because I went to prison for a number of
years, they are perhaps partly right. They are, however,
fundamentally wrong in another sense, because most of us
who endured privations felt that period to be the most
significant in our lives. It was not a period which might be
measured in terms of normal happiness but it was something
deeper than that — a period in which we felt a certain satis-
faction. Why? Because, for the moment, our ideals were in
conformity with our actions or, to put it in the other way,
we acted in accordance with our ideals. And there can be
no greater satisfaction to an individual than when there is
such a synthesis of thought and action in him. Then he
becomes, for the moment, an integrated individual and he
functions with power and strength and without doubt. The
real difficulties seldom come from an external source. Real
difficulties are those which arise in our own minds when we are
in doubt; they can also arise when we are not able to act in

402 JAWAHARLAI. NF.HRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1958

accordance with our conviction for some reason. Then there is
difficulty and obstruction within ourselves and complexes
arise. We had the feeling of tremendous satisfaction in what
we were doing, because during that period we became inte-
grated human beings in whom thought and action more or
less went together.

We wanted results, of course. We were working for results
but for the moment we were satisfied with the act of doing,
results apart. We had ups and downs, apparent failures for
the moment. But such was the nature of the technique of
action which Gandhi had taught us that even in a moment
of apparent failure there really was no going back.

You may have heard that a large number of us, a hundred
thousand of us, were in prison and apparently nothing was
happening in India. The movement for freedom was
suppressed. It was so, in a superficial sense. Six months later
or a yeai later, suddenly one would find that the movement
was very alive. Repeatedly, the British Government was
amazed. It would think that it had put an end to this business;
and then it would find that it had started off at a higher pitch
than ever. A movement, which was a peculiar mixture of mass
activity and individual action (that is, each individual doing
something regardless of whether others did it or not), is a
type very difficult to crush. It may be suppressed for a while;
but because there is the individual incentive and because the
individual wants to act regardless of whether others act or
not, and when thousands and tens of thousands of individuals
feel that way, it is very difficult to suppress them.

How do governments function? A democratic govern-
ment in the ultimate analysis functions largely with the good-
will of the people and with their co-operation. It cannot go
very much against them. Even an autocratic government has
to have a measure of goodwill. It cannot function without
it. In the ultimate analysis, a government functions because
of certain sanctions which it has and which are represented
by its army or police force. If the government is in line with
the thought of a majority of the people, it is a democratic
government and only a very small minority of the people
will feel its pressure. Now, if an individual refuses to be afraid

THE GANDHIAN TECHNIQUE

40S

of these sanctions, what is the government to do about it?
It may put him in prison. He is not afraid; he welcomes it.
He may be, if you like, shot down. He is not afraid of
facing death. Well, then a government has to face a crisis;
that is, a government, in spite of its great power, cannot
really conquer an individual. It may kill him but it does
not overcome him. That is failure on the part of the
government. A government, which is essentially based —
apart from the other factors which I have mentioned — upon
the sanctions it has, comes up against something — the spirit
of man which refuses to be afraid of those sanctions.

Now, that is a thing which normal governments d.* not
understand. They are upset by it. They do not know siow to
deal with it. They can, of course, deal with the individual in
the normal way by treating him as a criminal. But that, too,
does not work, because that man docs not feel like a criminal:
nor do others regard him as a criminal. So, it does not work.

So that, this process, this technique of action, was not one
of overwhelming a government so much by mass action —
although there was that phase of it — but rather one of
undermining the prestige of a government before which an
individual would not bow. Many of you, no doubt, have
read something very like it in Thoreau’s writings. This was
developed on a mass scale by Gandhi. Naturally, the people
of India were not very well trained; nor did they under-
stand too well the philosophy of this technique of action.
They were weak and frail human beings. They slipped and
made mistakes and all that. Nevertheless, on the whole,
they did function according to that technique; and ultimately
they triumphed. That is one thing I should like you to bear
in mind.

The second thing is quite different. We were fighting for
political freedom. That was the primary urge — the nationalist
urge for political freedom. But always, right from the
beginning, this political freedom was associated in our minds
with economic and social progress and freedom. The more
we went — and we went all the time — to the masses of the
Indian people — the peasantry, the workers, the petty
shopkeepers, especially in the rural areas — and the more we

404

JAWAHARLAL NF.HRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

saw of the poverty of India, the more we were impressed by
it. We could not conceive of any freedom which would be
only political freedom and which did not bring relief to these
people.

The first problem we took up, inevitably, was the land
problem, because most of the peasantry were oppressed by
the land tenure system in India. It was a varied system —
sometimes completely feudal, sometimes something less than
feudal but, nevertheless, bearing down heavily upon the
tenant. So, right from the beginning in our programme, the
reform of the land tenure system occupied a very prominent
place.

We explored other fields, too, and drew up various
economic programmes for the betterment of the people,
because we looked upon political freedom not as a final goal
but rather as a gateway and an opportunity for the nation to
progress, as the removal of an obstruction which came in the
way of our functioning as we wanted to function. The real
functioning and the real progress were to come afterwards.

We made many plans and when, two and a quarter years
ago, this freedom for which we had laboured came, we had a
large number of plans ready for advance along all kinds of
fronts — economic, educational, health, labour. But although
the dream which we had dreamed for a long time was coming
true — and it was exciting to see a dream come true — it did
not come true quite as we had wanted it to. In the process of
its coming, the country was partitioned, although with our
consent, under the stress of circumstances. Wanting peace
and wanting freedom and not wanting anything to delay it,
we agreed to that partition, although we disliked it intensely
and we rather feared the consequences. Still we thought,
on balance, that a partition of the country would be the
most peaceful way of achieving our ends.

As a matter of fact, peace did not follow that partition
and upheavals took place. Terrible things happened — killings,
massacres of large numbers of people and vast migrations
from one part of the country to another. We had six million
refugees or displaced persons — call them what you will — come
to India, uprooted from Pakistan. And about a like number

THE GANDHIAN TECHNIQUE

405

went from India to Pakistan. Men of all types, men and
women of all classes, all grades in life — rich people, poor
people, middling people, peasants, workers, merchants,
industrialists, financiers, educationists, professors, lawyers,
doctors — leaving all their property just hurried across to save
themselves. Six millions of them — just think of the number
we have had to look after!

This was a terrific problem; and it is a terrific problem
looking after six million refugees of all types. To remove them
was difficult enough. The second thing, just to feed them
and to give them shelter, was another very big task but the
final and the biggest task was to rehabilitate them. We
have been engaged in that for these last two years. We have
rehabilitated a fairly large number but a considerable ni mber
still remains; and I am afraid that this problem is going to
be with us for many years.

Look at the picture of India about the time independence
came to us and just after. The coming of independence was,
as you know, peaceful in the sense that there was peace
between India and the United Kingdom. It was done by
agreement; and the whole process was completed in an
admirably peaceful way, which does great credit both to India
and England.

There is one factor I should like you to remember in this
particular connection. Gandhi’s technique of action was not
only peaceful but also effective. It showed results. It showed
its effectiveness most in the way it brought about freedom
and the fact that it led to no ill will between the two countries.
And after achieving that freedom, though we were not
completely devoid of ill feeling — I cannot say that — yet it
was extraordinary how suspicion, ill will and bitterness
against England faded away from our country. And, as you
know, we decided of our own free will to co-operate with
her in many things and we have continued to co-operate with
her.

If you have to solve a problem, it is not much good solving
it in such a way as to create two or three more difficult
problems. That is what normally happens. Gandhi's way
was not only to solve the problem but to solve it in such a

27—11 DPD/CS

406

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1955

way that it was a final or relatively final solution that did not
create other problems.

The problem of freedom was satisfactorily solved.
Nevertheless, the ending of British rule after a hundred and
fifty years, naturally, brought many problems in its trail. All
kinds of new forces were released. All kinds of problems
which had been arrested or hidden away came up before us.
There were the Indian princes, six hundred of them, big and
small. That was a difficult matter. We could not possibly
have six hundred islands of independent or semi-independent
territory all over India. No country could exist like that.
Then, there were many reactionary elements in India which
thought that when the British left there would be a period of
disorder that they might take advantage of. There were
feudal elements, narrow nationalistic elements, communal
elements and the like. And then, on top of this came the
post-partition upheaval in northern India. Naturally, it
helped all these reactionary’ elements and they wanted to
profit by it.

This was the situation we had to face. Well, we faced it
and gradually overcame it. We survived and we began solving
many of the big problems that had arisen. Take the Indian
States problem. We have practically solved it and with
remarkable speed, considering the complexity of it. Five or
six hundred States have been disposed of peacefully and with
the co-operation and consent of the rulers of these States.
Why? Because the whole Indian State system of these
maharajas and rajas and nabobs was completely artificial
and was kept up by the British power. Maybe a hundred
and fifty years ago it was not so artificial but much had
happened since then; and I have no doubt that if the British
had not been in India, these rulers either would have been
removed or would have changed their character or would
have been fitted into a new kind of political structure, just
as in the last hundred and fifty years you have seen all kinds
of principalities gradually disappearing in Europe. That
would have happened in India, too.

But it could not happen because the British, an external
authority, protected these people. They were completely

THE GANDHIAN TECHNIQUE

407

without strength, either in their own people or in any other
way. And so, the moment the British Power was removed,
the Indian princes, practically speaking, collapsed like a
house of cards; and they came to terms with 11s. And we gave
them generous terms — generous in the sense that we gave
them generous pensions — but otherwise they ceased to be
rulers as they had been. In some places, in two or three
cases, they continue for the moment as constitutional rulers
with Ministers and the other paraphernalia of democratic
government. In other places they are just ex-rulers pensioned
off. This major problem was solved with remarkable speed.

The land problem which we had taken up long ago, we
wanted to solve with all speed, too. That is a much more
difficult problem but in a great part of India — in three of our
biggest provinces — it is practically solved or in the process of
being solved. It meant acquiring the land from big landlords
on payment of compensation. That meant rather big sums by
way of compensation. Therefore, it was complicated; other-
wise there was no difficulty. The actual cultivators will keep
their land and the absentee owners will be paid compensation
for giving up such rights as they might have had. We are
proceeding with that. This is important because the biggest
problem of Asia — taken as a whole — is the land or the
agrarian problem. There are many other problems in Asia
but the basic problem, before you can make progress in an
agricultural country, is obviously the agrarian problem. I
think that many of the troubles of Asia can be understood
only if you keep in mind this fact; the agrarian problem is
the most important.

We tackled the agrarian problem in India and, if I may
say so, the basic stabiHty of the Indian Government is due
to the fact that we have dealt with the agrarian problem in a
way satisfactory to the peasant in India. I might also mention
in this connection that the peasantry suffered tremendously
in the past with everybody sitting on their backs. Our cities
grew at the expense of our peasantry. For the first time in
their lives, the peasantry had a tolerably fair deal during the
last war. That is, the high prices of agricultural produce
brought them much more money than they had ever seen.

408

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

This resulted in their paying off the very heavy agricul-
tural debt which was bearing down upon them. And again, for
the first time also, they began to eat a little more because they
got a* good price. They were not forced to sell every bit of grain
or other produce, as they were previously, to pay their rent.
Previously, they had to sell almost everything just to hang
on to their land. Because they got much higher prices for
their produce, they could pay their rent easily and have
something left over. So they began to eat more.

That, of course, is a very good thing — their paying off
their debt and the peasantry’s eating a little more wheat or
rice — but this had a result that was slightly upsetting in
another field. When a hundred million people begin to eat
a little more, it makes a vast difference to the total food stocks
of the country'. And we began to suffer from food deficits.
These food deficits were partly caused by the partition
because some of our best wheat-growing areas went to
Pakistan. There were other causes, too; but one of these
causes was the fact that people were actually eating more.
We wanted them to eat more but for the moment we did
not have more for them to eat or rather, if they ate more,
the others had less to eat and that created a problem. We
could not afford, as an autocratic government might, to see
people starving and dying of famine.

May I remind you that not so long ago, in 1943, six
years ago, while the war was going on, there was a terrible
famine in Bengal? You may remember that three million
people died in the province of Bengal through sheer starva-
tion. That famine took place for many reasons but it was
directly related to the war in the sense that India’s resources
were thrown into the war without a thought of how that
would affect the masses generally. They were deprived of
even the bare necessities and, suddenly, had nothing. There
was a bad harvest, there were no resources left and they
died like flies. A democratic government could not face a
situation like that even if it wanted to. The government
would have to go and some other government would come
in. So then, this food deficit took place, among other reasons,
because people were eating a little more. The peasantry

THE GANDHIAN TECHNIQUE

409

would not bring to the market all they had previously brought
to the market. The cities began to suffer. We had to import
food — large quantities of it — which, again, became a terrible
burden on us.

This was apart from the normal difficulties created by the
partition. The difficulties were very great, because the
partition of India meant suddenly cutting a living body into
two. Everything was partitioned overnight, our communica-
tion system, telephones, telegraphs, our postal system, our
irrigation system, our transport system, our railways, our
army, our civil services. Everything was divided up; and in
spite of the fact that it was done peacefully, it produced a
certain amount of confusion. Just at this time came the
upheaval and with it the vast numbers of refugees — millions
of them. Then, we had also to face this food deficit and had
to pay large sums of money to import food from abroad.

It was not a very easy situation for anv government to
face, especially a new government, after its own country
had been partitioned and all its services and everything had
been upset. However, we have gone through this period and
on the whole have made good. And may I say that because
we have gone through this period and faced all these dangers
and difficulties, as well as the previous hardships during our
struggle for freedom, we have gained a sense of self-
confidence? And we feel that we know very well that we
have more difficult problems to face than we have already
faced and overcome. And so, there is a general feeling of
confidence in the country in regard to the economic or other
pioblems which we may have. We shall get over them. It
will mean hard work. But we are perfectly prepared for hard
work. We do not try to delude our people into thinking that
they are going to have a soft time. But what they want is not
a soft time but a picture of the future for which they should
work — a picture in which they can see, first of all, a progres-
sive improvement of their lot and present burdens being more
or less fairly shared by all groups instead of being borne by
some groups and not by others. The latter, as you can well
appreciate, can be a very irritating thing.

That is the position of India. That being so, our primary

410

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

concern in India today is to build this new India, to make it
prosperous, to do everything which would enable the economy
to improve, create more wealth and increase production.
In doing that, we feel that we should pay much more atten-
tion to what might be called the basic industries or certain
basic things than to other rather superficial industries.

Our first attention is paid, therefore, to certain river
valley schemes. Some of them are very big schemes — bigger
than the Tennessee Valley Authority; many of them are
smaller. These river valley schemes are multipurpose
schemes — first of all, to avoid floods; secondly, to irrigate
large areas of land for the production of food; thirdly, for
hydro-electric power; then, also, to prevent soil erosion and
malaria; and, ultimately, to help the growth of industry.

These are very ambitious schemes and rather costly. In
our enthusiasm we wanted to go ahead with dozens and
dozens of these schemes. We had to slow down a little when
we found that we did not have the technical personnel or the
financial capacity to go ahead with all of them. Nevertheless,
we are going ahead with some of the big ones and many
of the small ones; and we hope to go ahead with the others
soon enough.

Then we want to develop certain other basic industries —
steel, for example. We have a very big steel plant. It is not
enough. We want to have more steel plants and machine
tool industries. Unless one has these basic things, one cannot
industrialize a country. We want to industrialize India. We
will not, of course, change her fundamentally agricultural
character thereby, because, however much we may industria-
lize her, India will still remain basically an agricultural coun-
try whether India wants to or not.

India suddenly has to face new contacts with Asian
countries and new responsibilities. Of course, whether you
think in terms of trade or commerce or defence, India comes
into the picture — whether it is Western Asia or South-East
Asia or the Far East. You may consider South-East Asian
problems apart from Western Asian problems but in both
these India comes in. So, India cannot be isolated. In the
world today, no country — big or small — can just isolate

THE GANDHIAN TECHNIQUE

411

itself. We have to face very difficult problems and those
people who are in positions of responsibility have really a
terrific burden to carry. The burden would, anyhow, be
very difficult and great but the real difficulty, a moral
difficulty, if I may say so, is this: you may, perhaps, be
convinced in your mind of a certain course of action which
is right or, if I may put it another way, you may be convinced
of what is truth in a certain context. If you are convinced as
an individual, it is your duty to follow that line regardless of
consequences. As a political leader, you do not function as
an individual; you function through other individuals whom
you lead. You have to make those other individuals also
understand the truth as you perceive it. It is not enough for
you to perceive it. They are the material through wl ich you
act and, therefore, the measure of their activity is governed
not by your understanding but by their own understanding
of what you say.

Difficult problems, political or moral, thus arise. That
you have to function through a medium is a limiting factor.
You have to function through masses of men or governments
or groups, not as an individual. You may be a very great
leader — a prophet if you like — but you are functioning as an
individual, no doubt influencing others, no doubt influencing
succeeding generations tremendously but, nevertheless,
functioning as an individual. First of all, political leaders are
not prophets; nor are they, normally, great seekers after
truth. Even if they choose to follow what they consider the
right path, they are limited by the fact that they have to
make others move and not themselves. And so, they inevitably
have to compromise. In the context of things, they have to
compromise, because there are so many forces at play which
they cannot control. Either they retire from the scene or they
compromise. Now, once you start compromising, you are
on a slippery slope and it may land you anywhere. So, what
is one to do? On the one hand, there is this danger of your
losing all touch with reality or truth, if you like; on the other
hand, unless you compromise, you do not acknowledge
reality, you are cut off from it and function merely as an
individual and not as a leader.

412

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

This is a difficult problem which each one of us in his
own small or big way has to face. I know no answer to it,
because there can be no general answer; and each case has to
be measured and considered separately. But I would say this:
even when one compromises, one should never compromise
in regard to the basic truth.’ One may limit the application of
it, remembering always the basic way, the basic objective
and where the aim lies. If we always remember the basic
objective and always aim that way, it may be permissible, as
a next step, to say something much less than that which
people understand. But if we forget the basic objective, then
the small step may lead us astray.

In the present-day world, people talk of the atom bomb
and are afraid of all the possible consequences which even the
present generation might have to face. It is a very extra-
ordinary situation, because one may say that science and the
application of science have developed so much that it should
be easily possible for the whole world to satisfy not only the
primary needs of humanity but other needs also and to have
full opportunities of individual or group development without
the necessity of any conflict. I think that it can be mathema-
tically shown that it is possible for the whole world to prosper
if the resources of the world were turned in the direction of
the betterment of humanity instead of so much of them being
used for and wasted for purposes of war and the preparation
for war. For the first time in history, mankind has the key to
its happiness in its own hands. If this problem had arisen two
or three hundred years ago, it would, perhaps, have been
difficult to solve, because all mankind could not prosper
together at that time.

And yet, just when we can solve a problem which has
afflicted the world through ages past, we, so to speak, with
our own goodwill or ill will, raise this new problem which
may be exemplified today by the atom bomb. Of course, the
atom bomb is only a symbol of other things. It is an extra-
ordinary thing that we live in fear of it all the time, not
knowing when sudden disaster may descend upon us. I am
not terribly afraid of it because I do not think that there is
much likelihood of that disaster descending upon us in the

THE GANDHIAN TECHNIQUE

41S

near future or for some years to come. I hope that if these
years are properly utilized, it will never come, provided we
work to that end consciously, provided we are not terribly
afraid. The real danger of the situation is that of fear and that
wrong steps might be taken because of fear.

. We have got into a vicious circle. I am quite certain that
in the world today there are very few persons who can
conceivably think of war and that in every country a vast
number of people, almost everyone, desires peace. And yet,
in spite of that, there must be something wrong with our
thinking or with our actions. Why should we be caught in
this web? We may say, of course, that it is not our fault, that
it is other people’s fault. And it is, doubtless, true. Neverthe-
less, there is something wrong about our getting caught in
that dilemma. Gandhi always told us, ‘You ha\e no business
to blame the British for the failures in your national move-
ment, the failures in what you are trying to do. Of course,
the British Government would try to check you; that is their
function. So long as they do not agree and so long as the whole
matter is not settled, they will check you. So, what is the good
of blaming them, because they check you and defeat you?
It shows your failure. It is always your failure if you do not
succeed, not the Britisher’s failure. So, it is not much good
our blaming them for it.’

It is not much good our blaming others. Others, no doubt,
are to blame. That is not the point. But we should find a way
out and not depend upon the goodwill or the ill will of others,
for then we become dependent on what others do in regard
to war and peace.

I have obviously no magical formula to offer anybody in
regard to this dilemma, which is a very difficult one for a
politician, for any person with responsibility cannot afford to
take a risk about his country. He has to prepare for every
eventuality. He has to prepare against any possible aggres-
sion. He cannot, humanity being what it is, just take up the
line of complete passive resistance and say, ‘We shall do
nothing and hope that nobody else will do anything.’ He
cannot take any risk and he has to be ready for every possible
contingency.

414 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

On the other hand, the very act of that preparation
sometimes goes so far as to bring a possible conflict nearer;
and it is obvious that a conflict, if it comes on a world-scale,
is likely to be a disaster of unparalleled magnitude. Nobody
knows exactly what will happen but one thing is dead
certain: the modern world, as it functions today and modern
civilization as it is, will hardly survive.

If that is so — and we must realize that that is likely to
happen — then it is not merely a question of victory and
defeat. Of course, victory is always desirable so that we may
do what we want to do. But the question is a much deeper
one — that of achieving certain objectives at which you aim.
When you fight a war, you fight it to attain certain objectives.
Victory is not the objective but a step, the removal of an
obstruction, so that you may attain the objective. If you forget
that objective, then the victory you gain becomes a hollow
victory. It is some relief, no doubt, but you have not gained
the objective. Hence, the last two wars, which have been
tremendous victories in the military sense, have somehow not
relieved the tensions of the world.

Perhaps, in this context, it is worth while thinking how
far the Gandhian technique is applicable. I do not know how
far it is applicable practically, because there are innumerable
difficulties but I do think that whether or not it is practically
applicable, in our mental and psychological life it may help
us a great deal.

THE AGE OF CRISIS

F or nearly three weeks I have been a wanderer in this vast
country and have visited many great cities and famous
universities. Wherever I have gone, I have received a whole-
hearted welcome and generous hospitality. I have met many
of the leaders of this country; men and women who wield

Address at the University of California, October 31, 1949

THE ACE OF CRISIS

415

authority and shoulder responsibility in various phases of a
great nation’s activities. I ha\e also had glimpses of many
others who work in field or factoiy and arc the backbone of
the nation. I wish I could have more opportunities of meeting
ordinary people and seeing them at work and at play. But
my time was limited and so, regretfully, ^ had to deprive
myself of this opportunity.

The President of the United States described my visit to
this country in vivid language as a voyage of discovery. That
description was true enough, as I had to learn and find out
many things; and yet, how can any one discover this great
country in three or tour weeks? All my life I have been
engaged in a quest — the disco\ ery of my own country —
India. During this life’s journey of discovery, I hate found
much in my country that inspired me, much that interested
me and much that made me understand a little of what India
was and is today. And yet India, with the weight of ages
behind her and with her urges and desires in the present, has
only been partially discovered by me and I am continually
finding out new facets of her many-sided personality that
continually surprise me.

How then can I presume to discover this great country
during a brief visit? And yet, even a brief visit may give
some insight into the ideals and objectives and the springs of
action of a nation. So, I made myself receptive in order to
understand somewhat the spirit of America and the sources
of the inner strength that have made her great. All the world
sees, sometimes, perhaps, with a little envy, her great pros-
perity and the tremendous advance she has made in the
application of science for human betterment. From that, all
of us have much to learn; and yet, it was obvious to me that
no great material advance could take place or could last long
unless there were deeper foundations underlying it. The
picture of the average American presented to the outside
world is of a hard-headed, efficient and practical business-
man, intent on making money and using that money to add
to his power and influence. That picture, no doubt, has
some truth in it. And yet there is another picture and, 1
think, a much more enduring one, of a warmhearted and

416

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

very generous people, full of goodwill for others and with a
firm belief in the basic principles on which this great Republic
was founded — the principles of freedom, equality and
democracy. It has been my good fortune to see this latter
picture wherever I have gone and this has made me realize
wherein lies the real strength of America. Everywhere I have
found a love of freedom and a desire for peace and co-opera-
tion and, among the people, a frankness and human approach
which make friendly understanding easy. Because of this
approach I have also ventured to speak frankly what I had
in my mind.

After spending some days on the east coast of this conti-
nental country, paying brief visits to the middle west and
having a glimpse of the south, I have now come to the western
coast of America and to the famous and cosmopolitan city of
San Francisco. I could not have gone back to India without
visiting the west coast about which I had heard so much.

During these wanderings of mine, I have noticed the
great variety of American life and at the same time the
fundamental unity of it. I have been reminded again and
again of my own country with its vast extent and its diversity
and unity. The United States, astride between two great
oceans, looks out to the east towards Asia. So also India has
had many windows looking out at various parts of the great
Asian continent. India has had close contacts with Western
Asia, Central Asia, South-East Asia and the Far East.
Geography has played a dominant part in the history and
development of both the United States and India and will
no doubt continue to influence considerably the course of
events in the future. That influence is not so great today as
it used to be, because of the tremendous developments of
transport and communications which make every country
almost a neighbour of another. The United States, by virtue
of her origin and history, naturally looked towards Europe
and only gradually spread towards the west because, for a
long period, Europe was the principal centre of the world’s
activities.

A change of supreme importance has now come over the
world scene and that is the renascence of Asia. Perhaps, when

THE AGE OF CRISIS

417

the history of our times comes to be written, the re-entry of
this old continent of Asia — which has seen so many ups and
downs — into world politics will be the most outstanding fact
of this and the next generation. All the world is concerned
with this but more particularly the United States, because
of her.- geographical and pivotal position, apart from the great
power that she wields in world affairs today.

The world is full of unsolved problems today; perhaps, all
of them can be considered as parts of one single problem. This
problem cannot be solved unless the full implication of the
renascence of Asia is kept in mind, for Asia will inevitably
play an ever growing part in world affairs. Asia, arrested in
her growth, faces this world problem in two of its major
aspects — political and economic. The political problem, that
is, the achievement of political freedom, has a certain priority
because without it no effective progress is possible. But owing
to the delay in the achievement of political freedom, the
economic problem has become equally important and urgent.
National freedom is thus the first essential in Asia and,
although most of the countries of Asia have achieved this,
some still remain under colonial domination. These relics of
foreign rule will have to go, giving place to national freedom,
thus satisfying nationalism, which is the predominant urge
of Asian peoples. The economic betterment of the vast masses
of Asia is equally essential, both from their point of view and
from the point of view of world peace and stability. This will
involve a progressive industrialization of these countries and
in this the United States can play a vital role.

There is another danger point that is always to be borne
in mind and that is racial discrimination and inequality. This
is also a relic from the past, which has no place today and is
naturally resented by those who suffer from it.

India is an ancient country with millennia of history
behind her but she faces the world today as a young and
dynamic nation. For thirty years she concentrated on her
struggle for national freedom. And that struggle, under the
leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, was an unusual one. That
great man, whom we call the Father of our Nation, gave
some impress of his mighty personality to India and more

418

JAWAHARI.AI NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1958

especially to our generation. And so, today, as we look out
upon the world and fashion our foreign policy, we are
governed by something of that idealism as well as the realistic
approach that Gandhi gave to our struggle. If India is to
play any effective part in world affairs or even in her own
development, she has to function in conformity with the
ideals that she has held for these many years. Those ideals
are essentially of peace and co-operation, of national freedom,
of a growing internationalism leading to a world order, of
equality among nations and people and of the eradication of
want and misery from the millions who suffer from it.

Mahatma Gandhi taught us to view our national struggle
always in terms of the under-privileged and those to whom
opportunity had been denied. Therefore, there was always an
economic facet to our political struggle for freedom. We
realized that there was no real freedom for those who suffered
continually from want, and because there were millions who
lacked the barest necessities of existence in India, we thought
of freedom in terms of raising and bettering the lot of these
people. Having achieved political freedom, it is our passionate
desire to serve our people in this way and to remove the many
burdens they have carried for generations past. Gandhi said
on one occasion that it was his supreme ambition to wipe every
tear from every eye. That was an ambition beyond even his
power to realize, for many millions of eyes have shed tears in
India, in Asia and in the rest of the world; and perhaps it
may never be possible completely to stop this unending flow of
human sorrow. But it is certainh possible for us to lessen hu-
man want and misery and suffering; and what are politics and
all our arguments worth if they do not have this aim in view.

We live in an age of paradox and continuing crisis. We
talk of peace and prepare for war. We discuss inter-
nationalism and One World and yet narrow nationalisms
govern our activities. There is said to be a conflict of ideologies
and this argument and the conflict that flows from it usually
take place without much thought of the ideals and objectives
that should govern us. We move from one temporary
expedient to another, never catching up with the pace of
events. Priding ourselves on shaping history, we function

THE AGE OF CRISIS

419

from day to day as slaves of the events that inexorably unroll
themselves before our eyes and fear possesses us and hatred
follows in its train.

None of us, especially those who have to shoulder the
burden of responsibility, can ignore the realities and dangers
of .the.- moment. We cannot live in an idealistic world of our
own creation. What we consider the immediate reality might
only be a passing phase and it may be that we have to look a
little deeper in order to understand and control events. The
world has made astonishing progress in technology and
material advancement. That is all to the good and we must
take full advantage of it. But the long course of history of
human development shows us that there arc certain basic
truths and realities that do not change with the (hanging
times and unless we hold fast to them we are likely to go
astray. The present generation has often gone astray in spite
of all the wonderful accumulation of knowledge that we
possess and danger always looms ahead.

What, then, is lacking and how can we solve these crises
in human affairs? I am no prophet nor have I any magical
remedy to suggest. 1 have tried to grope my way, to think
straight and to co-ordinate, as far as possible, action to
thought. I have often found it difficult to do so, for action on
the political plane is not individual action but group and
mass action. Nevertheless, I am convinced that any policy,
any ideology, which ignores truth and character in human
beings and which preaches hatred and violence, can only
lead to evil results. However good our motives may be and
however noble the objective we aim at, if the path we follow
and the means we adopt are wrong and evil, we can never
achieve that objective. If we seek peace we must labour for
peace and not for war. If we seek harmony and goodwill
among the various peoples of the world, we must not preach
or practise hatred. It is true that there is plenty of violence
and hatred in the world today and we cannot permit this to
triumph, as we cannot submit to any aggression. We have to
combat evil and aggression; in doing so, we have to remember
not only our aims and objectives but also that the means we
adopt should be in conformity with them.

420 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1955

The growth of modern civilization with its magnificent
achievements has led more and more to the centralization of
authority and power and encroachments continue to be
made on the freedom of the individual. Perhaps, to some
extent, this is inevitable, as the modern world cannot function
without considerable centralization. We have seen, however,
this process of centralized authority being carried to such an
extreme that individual freedom almost vanishes. The State
becomes supreme in everything or groups of individuals have
so much concentrated power at their disposal that individual
freedom tends to fade away. Different and sometimes hostile
ideologies, from their respective points of view, encourage
this concentration of power in the State or the group. This
must ultimately result not only in human unhappiness but
also in a lessening of that creative genius which is so essential
for the growth of humanity. We have to find some balance
between the centralized authority of the State and the
assurance of freedom and opportunity to each individual.

This and like problems will have to be solved in the
minds of men before we can mould the shape of things to our
liking. What more appropriate place can there be for the
consideration of these problems than a university where the
rising generation is being trained to take part in the business
of life and to shoulder its burdens?

As I stand here in the beautiful campus of this university,
surrounded by the peace and beauty of nature and the
genius of man, the conflicts and troubles of the world seem
far away. The past crowds in upon me, the past of Asia, of
Europe and of America and standing on this razor’s edge of
the present, I try to peep into the future. I see in this past the
long struggle of Man against adverse surroundings and in the
face of innumerable difficulties. I see his repeated martyrdom
and crucifixion but I see also the spirit of man rising again
and again and triumphing over every adversity. Let us look
at this perspective of history, gain wisdom and courage from
it and not be oppressed too much by the burden of the past
and of the present. We are the heirs of all these ages that have
gone before us and it has been given to us to play our part
during a period of great transition in this world. That is a

BASIC WISDOM

421

privilege and a responsibility and we should accept it without
fear or apprehension. History tells us of Man’s struggle for
freedom and in spite of many failures his achievements and
successes have been remarkable. True freedom is not merely
political but must also be economic and spiritual. Only then
can Man grow and fulfil his destiny. That freedom has also
to be envisaged today not merely in terms of group freedom
often resulting in nations warring against one another but as
individual freedom within free national groups in the larger
context of world freedom and order. The problems of Asia,
of Europe and of America can no longer be dealt with
separately; they are parts of a single world problem.

The future appears to be full of conflict and difficulty
but I have little doubt that the spirit of Man, which has
survived so much, will triumph again.

BASIC WISDOM

M r Chancellor, Mr Vice-Chancellor and fellow members
of the University of Ceylon, I am very grateful to you for
the honour you have done me. I do not quite know why I have
been singled out from amongst my distinguished colleagues
and called upon to speak on this occasion. Nevertheless,
I wish, if I may, to express my gratitude to you and through
you to others in this pleasant island for their great welcome
and for all that they have done for us during our stay here.

This is rather a unique occasion. The mere fact of people
from different parts of the Commonwealth and from distant
quarters of the world coming together to confer on questions
of vital consequence is a matter of significance and a presage
of the type of conferences that we may have in the future
when more and more people will confer together about the
problems of the day, in all earnestness and without regard to
those barriers which have separated us in the past.

Convocation Addrcns at the Unit era tv of Ce\!on, Colombo, January 12, 1950
28—11 DFD/63

422

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1919-1953

In the citation about me, I was, I believe, referred to as a
person who had profound wisdom and political astuteness. I
do not know how far I am politically astute but I must confess
to you that the older I grow the more I feel the lack of wisdom
in myself. Perhaps, it may be that that very feeling is a sign of
having some wisdom.

In the world today, one sees so many things which please
one and so many other things which appear to one to be so
extraordinarily wrong. One wonders why this world of ours,
having every opportunity of co-operating for the progress
of humanity, loses itself always in conflict, in violence and
in hatred. We see the clash of blind armies, as it were. We
see the reproduction in the modern age of something which
we thought had been done away with in the past ages. In the
past ages, we had in many parts of the world — fortunately
not so much in your country or mine — tremendous conflicts
on some kind of religious dogma and people fought one
another on the interpretation of some dogma. We see, today,
people becoming dogmatic in fields other than that of religion
and conflicts arising from that dogmatic approach to human
affairs.

I should have thought that in the modern world there
were many approaches we could have to life’s problems but
certainly not the narrow-minded, dogmatic approach. We
may have a scientist’s aproach, a humanist’s approach and
possibly other approaches, too; but the dogmatic approach
inevitably narrows the mind and prevents us from seeing
much that we ought to see.

In the realm of human affairs as also in international
affairs, we find this dogmatic approach bringing in its train
conflict, want of understanding, hatred and violence. I do not
know how we are to get over this; but unless we get over this
narrow-minded approach, I have no doubt that we shall fail
to solve the problems of the day.

One of the brighter features of this age is — and I attach a
great deal of value to it — that the barriers that separated the
so-called East from the so-called West are gradually dis-
appearing. That is a good sign. But, at the same time, other
barriers seem to be growing in the East and in the West. We

BASIC WISDOM

423

meet repeatedly in conferences and talk about the problems
that face us. Sometimes we solve a problem or two but for
each problem that we solve, half a dozen fresh ones crop up.

I remember that somebody made a calculation of
the number of international conferences that were held
after the conclusion of the First World War and before the
commencement of the Second World War. It was a prodi-
gious number. I do not quite know if we have exceeded
that number since the Second World War ended.

This is an age of international conferences. A conference
is always a good thing or almost always, because people, at
any rate, meet round a table and discuss matters with good
humour and, even if they do not always succeed in finding a
solution, the effort is, nevertheless, always worthy of being
made. That in itself results in something that is good. But I
have often wondered why there has been this failure in the
past to find solutions to our problems. Is it due to a lack of
wit in statesmen or to a lack of understanding? I do not
think it is either, because they have been able and earnest
statesmen desiring peace and co-operation. Even so, some-
how or other, solutions have escaped them. Why, then, is
it so? I do not know; perhaps, we work too much on the
superficial plane, finding solutions to the troubles of the
moment and not looking to the deeper causes.

I put this to you for your consideration, because some-
thing does come in the way. With all the earnestness we may
possess, sometimes we do not get over those old and new
barriers that come in the way of mutual understanding.
Then, I think that, in spite of our vaunted civilization, in
spite of the advance of science and technology, we have lost
our grip on some of the basic things of life, something that
gives anchorage to life and some standard with which we
could measure value.

We have advanced greatly in science — I am a great
believer in science — and the scientific approach has changed
the world completely. I think that if the world is to solve its
problems, it will inevitably have to be through the means of
science and not by discarding science. Nevertheless, I find
that the sheer advance of science has often enough made

424

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

people unscientific. That is an extraordinary thing to say but
what I mean is that science has become so vast and all-
pervading that scientists are unable to grasp things in their
entirety and have become narrower and narrower in each
individual subject. They may be very brilliant in some subject
but they seem to have no grip on life as a whole.

In the ancient civilizations of India and Greece that one
reads about, one has or, at any rate, I have the sensation
that people, though much more limited in the knowledge at
their disposal, certainly had an integrated view of life. They
were not so distracted; they could see life as a whole in spite
of the fact that they did not know as much or nearly as much
as the average undergraduate knows today. Because of this
integrated view of life, they had a certain wisdom in their
approach to life’s problems.

Whether that is true or not I do not know, because one is
apt to endow the past with a certain glamour. It may be that
I am wrong but in any event one thing seems to me to be
certain, namely, that we of today have no integrated view of
life; that we, however clever we may be and however much of
facts and knowledge we may have accumulated, are not
very wise. We are narrower than the people of old, although
every fact has gone to bring us together in this world. We
travel swiftly, we have communications, we know more about
one another and we have the radio and all kinds of things. In
spite of all these widening influences, we are narrower in our
minds. That is the extraordinary thing which I cannot
understand.

I put this to this gathering of university men, because
after all it is for the universities to tackle this problem more
than for any other organization. If the universities do not
teach some kind of basic wisdom, if they think in terms of
producing people with degrees who want certain jobs, then
the universities may have, perhaps, solved to a very minor
extent the problem of unemployment or provided some
technical help or other; but they will not have produced men
who can understand or solve the problems of today.

You and I live in Asia. Perhaps, one of the biggest facts
of today is this new and changing phase of Asia. What is

BASIC WISDOM

425

happening in Asia is a fact of tremendous historical
significance. It is difficult to grasp it entirely or to under-
stand it but I think any person must see that something very
big has happened and is happening all over Asia. There is a
certain dynamism about it. We do not like much of what is
happening and we may like something of what is happening
but the fact remains that tremendous and powerful elemental
forces are at play in Asia. For us just to sit in our ivory towers
and look at them, with dislike or approval, is not good enough.
If we wish to play any effective part in this world of ours we
have to understand them. For some three or four hundred
years, a good part of Asia was under a kind of eclipse and
there was a basic urge for political freedom for a long time.

If you read the history of Asia — it is a long, long history
— you will find that during the greater part of these thousands
of years, Asia has played an important part in world affairs.
It is only during the last three or four hundred years that
Asia has become static, quiescent and rather stagnant in
thought and in action in spite of all the virtues she might
have possessed. Naturally and rightly, she fell under the
domination of other more progressive, vigorous and dynamic
countries. That is the way of the world and that is the right
way. If you are static, you must suffer for it. And now, you
see a change coming over Asia, and because it is belated the
change comes with a rush, upsetting many things and doing
many things that one does not like. That this big change is
coming over us, however, is a major fact. I do not know — I
do not suppose any of you know — what ultimately this change
will lead to in Asia.

You and I live in this changing Asia of today. Many of
you will have the burden of facing these problems which are
not of today or tomorrow but which may last for a generation
or more than one generation. The burden is yours because
many of us whom you honour are in the afternoon of our
lives and have, perhaps, only a few more years to work and
labour, which, I am sure, we will do to the best of our capacity
and strength. And so, it is for you, young graduates of today,
to prepare yourselves in mind and body and, as much as you
can, in that deeper wisdom to understand these problems and

426

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

to (unction actively and help in the solution of them. In the
world of today, it is not enough for you to take up a distant
and academic altitude and look on and just advise others or
criticize others. Today, every man has to shoulder his burden.
If he does not, well, he falls out; he simply does not count.

I have found many of our young men and women — I am
talking more of India than of Ceylon because I do not know
much about Ceylon — full of enthusiasm, full of energy, full
of earnestness but, if you will permit me to say so, singularly
academic or, if you like, singularly cut off from life’s realities.
During their student days, they often debated and passed
resolutions on this subject or that but afterwards, when they
went out into the world, they seemed to think that life itself
was a continuous debating society where they could pass
votes of censure or criticize others without doing much
themselves.

Now, that is not a very helpful attitude. Perhaps, it is due
to the fact that for the past so many years, most of us did not
have much chance of doing anything constructive. Our main
job was to fight for the freedom of our country in a destruc-
tive way, in an oppositionist way and not in a creative way.
The result is that we cannot get rid of this negative and
destructive outlook. Instead of helping to build something,
we just sit down and criticize others who may be, rightly or
wrongly, trying to build. At least, they are trying to build.
I think that mere criticism is a very unhelpful and bad atti-
tude to adopt. In whatever country you may be, what is
required today is a constructive and creative approach.
Certainly there is always something to destroy, something
that is bad; but mere destruction is not enough. You must
also build.

One thing more. I take it that a university is essentially a
place of culture, whatever ‘culture’ might mean. But that
takes me back to where I began. There is a great deal of
culture all over the place and I, normally, find that those
people who talk most loudly of culture, according to my
judgment, possess no culture at all. Culture, first of all, is not
loud; it is quiet, it is restrained, it is tolerant. You may judge
the culture of a person by his silence, by a gesture, by a

BASIC WISDOM

427

phrase or, more especially, by his life generally. The peculiar,
narrow idea of culture that is spreading is that culture
depends on the kind of headgear you wear or the kind of food
you eat or on similar superficial things which, I do not deny,
have a certain importance but which are very secondary in
the larger context of life.

. Each country has certain special cultural characteristics
which have been developed through the ages. Similarly,
each age has a culture and a certain way of its own. The
cultural characteristics of a country are important and are
certainly retained, unless, of course, they do not fit in with
the spirit of the age. So, by all means, adhere to the special
culture of your nation. But there is something that is deeper
than national culture and that is human culture. If you do
not have that human culture, that basic culture, then even
that national culture of which you may be so proud has no
real roots and will not do you much good. Today more
especially, it has become essential for us to develop, in
addition to such national culture as we may have, some-
thing that can only be called a world culture. There is much
talk of One World and I believe that, at some time or other,
that talk must bear fruit or else this world will go to pieces.
It may be that we will not see that One World in our genera-
tion but if you want to prepare for that One World you must
at least think about it. You have at least a culture to sustain
you; and there is no reason why you should live your lives
in narrow grooves, trying to think yourselves superior to the
rest of the world.

We live surrounded by all kinds of dark fears in this new
year. Probably, the prevailing feeling in the world of today is
fear. Almost everybody is afraid of something; every country
is afraid of some other country and, of course, fear is a thing
which leads to all kinds of undesirable consequences. Fear is
probably the most evil of sensations and we are living under
the dominance of fear. If we could get rid of this fear to some
extent, perhaps, it would be far easier for us to solve our
problems.

Besides fear, we see in the world a great deal of hope and
earnestness and a great deal of expectation of better things

428

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-195S

at the same time. We see creative and constructive as well as
destructive and negative impulses at work. I do not know
which will triumph in the near or the distant future, but
obviously it will be impossible for me and impossible for you
to function adequately if we do not believe in the ultimate
triumph of the creative and unifying processes of the day.

However that may be, even the attempt to work for some
great cause not only helps that cause but also helps us. We
are not prophets and wc do not know what the morrow may
bring but it is rather satisfying to work for die morrow of
your choice. It brings something into your life which makes it
worth while. If you align yourself to some great purpose or
to something elemental, it ennobles you. Whether the reward
comes or not, the mere fact of working for it is a reward
enough.

With all the evil that we see around us and with all its
degradation, we have to live in this world. There is, neverthe-
less, plenty of good in the world and we have to see that
there is plenty of whaL I as a Hindu would call the element of
divinity in the individual as well as in the group. If we can
have our feet firmly planted on the soil and do not lose our-
selves in imaginary vagaries and at the same time have some
of that divine fire in us, too, then, perhaps, we might be able
to balance ourselves and develop some kind of an integrated
life. Somebody has said — and I would like you to feel that
way:

Lord, though I live on earth, the child of earth,
yet I was fathered by the starry sky.

I have come to Ceylon after ten years. I have been here on
two or three previous occasions also. Whenever I come here,
I do not feel that I have come to a strange country — I feel
very much at home. Your welcome and the friendly faces
that I see everywhere make me feel at home. Quite apart
from that, you of Ceylon and we of India are intimately
related in our cultural inheritances as you all know very well
and it does not make much difference what shape politics
takes. You are an independent country, as you should be, so
are we an independent country, as we should be. Political
barriers should not be allowed to come into play when

DYNAMIC LIFE

429

culturally our people look to each other. When I come here,
I think even more than I normally do — and normally I
think a great deal — of that greatest and wisest and brightest
son of India, whom you honour greatly and whom all of
us in India and many other countries also greatly honour.
' The bond of the Buddha and all that it stands for is a bond
between India and Ceylon which nothing can break.
Whenever one thinks of the Buddha, one inevitably thinks of
his great teaching; and I often feel that, perhaps, if we think
more of that basic teaching of the avoidance of hatred and
violence, we may be nearer the solution of our problems.

DYNAMIC LIFE

I am grateful for the honour you have done me in awarding
me this degree. A number of otheruniversities inlndia have
also honoured me in this way; but that has not lessened in
any way the value of this particular honour. In my capacity
as Prime Minister, honours in various forms have been
showered upon me. The affection that has been lavished
upon me by the people of this country is, indeed, the greatest
honour that can come to anybody. It is overwhelming and
makes me feel very humble. No response can, therefore, be
adequate enough. All one can do is to utilize all one’s strength
and energy in furthering the tasks of the country. I think
Bernard Shaw once said that the true joy in life is to align
oneself with some mighty purpose and not get entangled in
petty troubles of which life is so full; to work for the purpose
with all the strength and energy that one may have till one is
worn out and can be thrown on the scrap heap. Well, I do
not know whether it is possible to disentangle oneself com-
pletely from the petty troubles of which there is such a great
deal. Normally, it would seem to be difficult to live a wholly
impersonal life and dedicate it to one mighty purpose; but

Address at the University of Saugor, October 30, 1952

430

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

sometimes, moments arrive in the history of a country when
this can be done — and done not merely by individuals but
by large groups. A moment came in the life of this country
when a large number of our countrymen aligned themselves
to a mighty purpose at the bidding of a very great man —
Mahatma Gandhi. These men forgot their personal
grievances and ambitions in an overwhelming desire to serve
a great purpose and thereby grew in stature themselves. If
you try to do great things, the shadow of their greatness
partly falls upon you also. If you always dwell on the petty
things of life, you inevitably remain petty. And so, in India’s
fight for freedom, many people of small stature had the
high privilege of serving under one of the greatest of men
and of being associated with their country’s historic struggle.

That, however, is past history. We have to accept the
present and think of the future. How shall we shape the
present? How are you, young men and women of this
University, going to conduct yourselves? I do not know
what you have in your minds or what desires and urges
influence you. 1 try to study the millions of faces I see
wherever I go and I have seen a good proportion of India’s
vast population. Although I see them in crowds and in
groups, I look into their eyes and try to read what lies behind
those eyes. I do this, especially when I meet young men and
women, because I am deeply concerned with the future of
India which they represent to me. The future of this country
ultimately depends on her young men and women, most of
whom are in colleges and universities today. I am very
anxious to find out what stuff they are made of. They are
large in number; but wliat really counts, if our country is to
progress, is the quality of our human material. The future of
India does not depend on her numbers or even on her past,
except in so far as the future grows out of the present and the
present grows out of the past. It is possible for a country to
make progress to some extent even with people of mediocre
quality. India has a large number of them. Obviously, that
is not enough. If a great country like India is to be greater,
it is essential for her to have men and women who must be
more than mediocre. I have no doubt that you try to play a

DYNAMIC LIFE

431

good game when you go in for sports. You perhaps run a
hundred yards in ten seconds; but if you want to be an athlete
of real quality you have to surpass and outdistance others.
It makes a lot of difference whether you do a hundred yards
in ten seconds or in eleven seconds. The difference is only
.one Second but it is very important. That applies to every-
thing. Is the University of Saugor going to produce men and
women of real quality? We produced men and women of
quality in the past. Subsequently, however, that quality
seemed to have worn off and we became a nation that more
or less lived on its inheritance. Of course, nothing is more
advantageous and more creditable than a rich heritage; but
nothing is more dangerous for a nation than to sit back and
live on that heritage. A nation cannot progress if it merely
imitates its ancestors; what builds a nation is creative,
inventive and vital activity. I seek the creative mind. How
do creative minds come to be? In many ways, I suppose.
I know that the University of Saugor cannot produce
creativeness; but what it can do is to provide an environ-
ment in which creativeness and vitality of mind and body
have a place and can prosper.

India seems to me an odd mixture of traits and
characteristics. Some fill me with joy and faith and others
with alarm. I cannot predict which will prosper and which
will ultimately win. That, the future will tell. All I can say is
that I have a great deal of faith in my country and in my
people. At the same time, what is wrong with our country is
also quite obvious. We are narrow in mind and vision; we
not only lack creativeness of mind but the atmosphere in
which it can flourish. I am astonished at the way the word
‘culture* is bandied about in India. To me this only means
that there is no culture where this is done. Culture is not
something that can be bandied about. It does not talk too
much and does not shout too much. The other day, I read
one of Rabindra Nath Tagore’s poems or rather a transla-
tion of it, which spoke of the wonderful variety of India where
innumerable streams have flowed, producing the culture we
now possess. The capacity to absorb these various streams of
culture is a part of the creativeness of India. Therefore, there

432

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

is no reason why we should adopt the narrow outlook of
pride and folly which makes us think that we have every-
thing and that we need receive nothing from outside. South-
East Asia and the Far East have borrowed freely from
India’s cultural inheritance. Similarly, we find evidence of
other cultures in India. Of course, the basis of Indian culture
remains unchanged even though it has absorbed other
cultures. Such was the country of our distant ancestors.
Gradually, a change came. We became afraid of others and
shrank into ourselves. We did not want either to go out
ourselves or to let others come in. We developed narrow
grooves of thought and narrow divisions amongst ourselves,
each division isolating itself from other castes or groups.
We practically imposed a ban on travel abroad. People
were afraid they would lose their caste or religion if they
went out of India. We came to attach more importance to
what we ate, drank or touched than to other far more
important aspects of life. The transformation you see now
was not sudden — this shrinking into ourselves, this closing of
our eyes to all that was going on around us and thinking that
what we possessed was everything and that there was nothing
more to learn. When an individual or a community starts to
think like that, individual or community is doomed
because life is an ever growing, dynamic process. No kind of
vitality can be static. The moment growth stops, decay sets
in and the ultimate result is death. Thus did we in India
become static in our life and culture. This process of decay
through the centuries can be traced in our literature. We
start with magnificent literature. Then we come to classical
Sanskrit, which is also very beautiful. However, it gradually
deteriorates and we reach a stage when Sanskrit comes to
be written in long involved sentences, sometimes even
running to two pages. There is no strength or vitality left
in it. Interpretations and explanations bear testimony to
the decay of the language. Instead of being inspired by great
ideas, we have even lost what we had. Our old architecture
was magnificent and was, perhaps, among the greatest
architectures of the world. See, how it became degraded!
It still retained its craftsmanship but the nobility of design

DYNAMIC LIFE

4SS

that had come from simplicity was gone. It became heavier
and heavier. There was no dignity in it, only hard work.
When a country is dynamic, it reveals itself in a myriad
activities. We hope to be dynamic again. Perhaps, it was
necessary for us to learn a lesson before we became dynamic
once more.

What inspiration can we draw from something which is
static and half dead? That is the question. I am amazed that
people should function in such a narrow way that they
should shut their minds and demand that others shut their
minds too, against everything new and talk only of Indian
culture. I know something about culture. Those who preach
that doors should be shut do not know anything of culture.
Every process of exclusion means lack of culture: every process
of inclusion indicates growth. Those elements that believe
in pushing things away narrow the mind and the nation falls
back to a period of static culture. We have to be dynamic or
else we cannot survive.

Do you realize what tremendous changes have come over
the world in the last few generations? I want you to think
about it. Take India, for instance. A man of Asoka’s or
Akbar’s time, looking at India as it was about 150 years ago,
would have found changes, of course; but he would not have
found any basic change. The pattern of human life was
much the same. The horse still remained the chief means of
transport and communication. It was so for thousands of
years. Suddenly — and chiefly due to the application of
science — a great change came. It is amazing how the develop-
ment in communications alone has upset the world. Even
that is not enough to make one realize how far science has
gone! You may have been static five hundred years ago but
nobody can be static today. Everything is changing. The
pace and tempo of the change is terrific. Incidentally, one of
the good things we have done in the past five years is that,
in order to get in touch with the rapid scientific changes,
we have set up a number of national laboratories. To remain
static is bad, because for a country to remain so means
stagnation and stagnation is something which leads to extinc-
tion. Besides, it is not even possible today. It might have

454

JAWAHARLAI, NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1955

been possible years ago when change was slow and when
the rest of the world did not impinge upon you.

To be dynamic and creative is the practical policy or the
higher view of culture. It is fatal to sink into narrowness of
mind in spite of the fact that India has had a tremendously
rich inheritance. How many of you have that dynamic
approach and how many of you are thinking in terms of
getting jobs here and there under the Government? Whether
you go into Government service or take up any other occu-
pation, what is you ideal? Just to earn a few hundred
rupees? Or is it to achieve something creative and good?
Are you just dragging on an unworthy existence for a number
of years and doing nothing else? That is a big question
facing India. Whatever our virtues and failings — and a long
list can be prepared of both — I believe in facing life in an
adventurous way, in meeting life more than half way with-
out making a noise and without shouting. Whether Nature
adapts itself to you or you to Nature ultimately depends
on whether your approach to life and to its problems is going
to be an adventurous and active one or a static one. What is
your ambition? What I seek in the eyes of the innumerable
men and women when I go round the country is great and
high ambition to do great things. Sometimes, I see some
eyes which rather thrill me; there is something of quality in
them. The more I see such eyes or faces, the more I am
assured of the future, which depends on the men and women
who have the spirit of adventure and who do not flinch from
difficulty. I hope the University of Saugor will produce such
men and women.

TO CHILDREN

THIS BEAUTIFUL WORLD OF OURS
Dear Children:

Shankar asked me to write something for the Children’s
Number of his Weekly. In a weak moment, thinking more of
the children than of the Weekly, I promised to write. But I
soon realized that I had made a rash promise. What was I to
write about?

I like being with children and talking to them and, even
more, playing with them. For a moment I foiget that I am
terribly old and that it is a very long time ago since I was a
child. But when I sit down to write to you, I cannot forget
my age and the distance that separates you from me. Old
people have a habit of delivering sermons and good advice
to the young. I remember that I disliked this very much
long long ago when I was a boy. So, I suppose you do not
like it very much either. Grown-ups have also a habit of
appearing to be very wise, even though very few of them
possess much wisdom. I have not quite made up my mind
yet whether I am wise or not. Sometimes, listening to others,
I feel I must be very wise and brilliant and important. Then,
looking at myself, I begin to doubt this. In any event, people
who are wise do not talk about their wisdom and do not
behave as if they were very superior persons.

So, I must not give you a string of good advice as to
what you should do and what you should not do. I suppose
you have enough of this from your teachers and others. Nor
must I presume to be a superior person.

What then shall I write about? If you were with me, I
would love to talk to you about this beautiful world of ours,
about flowers and trees and birds and animals and stars and
mountains and glaciers and all the other wonderful things

For the Children's Number of Shankar’s Weekly, New Delhi. December S,
1949

436

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

that surround us in this world. We have all this beauty
around us and yet we, who are grown-ups, often forget about
it and lose ourselves in our offices and imagine that we are
doing very important work.

I hope you will be more sensible and open your eyes and
ears to this beauty and life that surround you. Can you
recognize the flowers by their names and the birds by their
singing? How easy it is to make friends with them and with
everything in nature, if you go to them affectionately and with
friendship. You must have read many fairy tales and stories
of long ago. But the world itself is the greatest fairy tale and
story of adventure that has ever been written. Only, we must
have eyes to see and ears to hear and a mind that opens out
to the life and beauty of the world.

Grown-ups have a strange way of putting themselves in
compartments and groups. They build up barriers and then
they think that those outside their particular barrier are
strangers whom they must dislike. There are barriers of
region, of caste, of colour, of party, of nation, of province,
of language, of custom and of wealth and poverty. Thus,
they live in prisons of their own making. Fortunately, children
do not know much about these barriers which separate.
They play or work with one another and it is only when they
grow up that they begin to learn about these barriers from
their elders. I hope you will take a long time in growing up.

I have recently been to the United States of America, to
Canada and to England. It was a long journey, right on the
other side of the world. I found the children there very like
the children here and so I easily made friends with them and,
whenever I had the chance, 1 played with them a little.
That was much more interesting than many of my talks with
the grown-ups. For children everywhere are much the
same; it is the grown-ups who imagine they are very different
and deliberately make themselves so.

Some months ago, the children of Japan wrote to me and
asked me to send them an elephant. I sent them a beautiful
elephant on behalf of the children of India. This elephant
came from Mysore and travelled all the way by sea to Japan.
When it reached Tokyo, thousands and thousands of children

THIS BEAUTIFUL WORLD OF OURS

437

came to see it. Many of them had never seen an elephant.
This noble animal thus became a symbol of India to them
and a link between them and the children of India. I was
very happy that this gift of ours gave so much joy to so
jnany children of Japan and made them think of our country.
So, we must also think of their country and of the many
other countries in the world and remember that every-
where there are children like you going to school and play,
sometimes quarrelling but always making friends again.
You can read about these countries in your books and when
you grow up, many of you will visit them. Go there as friends
and you will find friends to greet you.

You know that we had a very great man amongst us. He
was called Mahatma Gandhi. But we used to call him
affectionately Bapuji. He was very wise but he did not show
off his wisdom. He was simple and childlike in many ways
and he loved children. He was a friend of everybody and
everybody, peasant or worker, poor man or rich man, came
to him and found a friendly welcome. He was a friend not
only to all the people of India but also to all the people in
the rest of the world. He taught us not to hate anybody,
not to quarrel but to play with one another and to co-operate
in the service of our country. He taught us also not to be
afraid of anything and to face the world cheerfully and with
laughter.

Our country is a very big country and there is a great
deal to be done by all of us. If each one of us does his or her
little bit, then all this mounts up and the country prospers
and goes ahead fast.

I have tried to talk to you in this letter as if you were
sitting near me and I have written more than I intended.

29 — 11 DFD/63

CHILDREN OF THE WORLD

W hat a troublesome person Shankar is 1 Every few days I
get a reminder from him that I must write something for
the Children’s Number or else he himself appears and looks at
me with reproachful eyes. Here I am trying hard to get
through a great deal of work before I leave for England and
on top of this I am expected to write articlesl Shankar
seems to forget that most of my writing has been done in the
leisure of prison. Since I came out of that small prison and
entered the larger prison of office, my freedom to read and
write has been taken away from me. I cannot do many of the
things that I would like to do and I have to do much that I
intensely dislike.

I suppose Shankar knows all this but he has got an idea
into his head that something from me must appear in the
Children’s Number. Well, I am bound to confess that I like
the idea of a Children’s Number very much and I should
like to help it grow. I liked the last number and I am almost
sure that the next number will be better. What pleases me
most of all is the great interest that children in distant
countries have taken in this venture. I was surprised and
delighted to visit an exhibition where hundreds of pictures
and cartoons sent for Shankar’s Children’s Number were
exhibited.

As I looked at these pictures, I thought of the vast army
of children all over the world, outwardly different in many
ways, speaking different languages, wearing different kinds
of clothes and yet so very like one another. If you bring them
together, they play or quarrel. But even their quarrelling is
some kind of play. They do not think of differences amongst
themselves, differences of class or caste or colour or status.

• They are wiser than their fathers and mothers. As they grow
up, unfortunately, their natural wisdom is often eclipsed by
the teaching and behaviour of their elders. At school they
learn many things which are no doubt useful but they
gradually forget that the essential thing is to be human and

For the Children’s Number of Shankar's Weekly, New Delhi December

CHILDREN OF THE WORLD

4S9

kind and playful and to make life richer for ourselves and
others. We live in a wonderful world that is full of beauty
and charm and adventure. There is no end to the adventures
that we can have if only we seek them with our eyes open.
So many people seem to go about their life’s business with
their eyes shut. Indeed, they object to other people keeping
their eyes open. Unable to play themselves, they dislike the
play of others.

Our own country is a little world in itself with an infinite
variety and places for us to discover. I have travelled a great
deal in this country and I have grown in years. And yet I have
not seen many parts of the country we love so much and seek
to serve. I wish I had more time, so that I could visit the odd
nooks and corners of India. I would like to go there in the
company of bright young children whose minds are opening
out with wonder and curiosity as they make new discoveries.
I should like to go with them, not so much to the great cities
of India as to the mountains and the forests and the great
rivers and the old monuments, all of which tell us something
of India’s story. I would like them to discover for themselves
that they can play about in the snow in some parts of India
and also see other places where tropical forests flourish. Such
a trip with children would be a voyage of discovery of the
beautiful trees of our forests and hillsides and the flowers that
grace the changing seasons and bring life and colour to us.
We would watch the birds and try to recognize them and
make friends with them. But the most exciting adventure
would be to go to the forests and see the wild animals, both
the little ones and the big. Foolish people go with a gun
and kill them and thus put an end to something that was
beautiful. It is far more interesting and amusing to wander
about without a gun or any other weapon and to find that
wild animals are not afraid and can be approached. Animals
have keener instincts than man. If a man goes to them with
murder in his heart, they are afraid of him and run away.
But if he has any love for animals, they realize that he is a
friend and do not mind him. If you are full of fear yourself
then the animal is afraid, too, and might attack you in self-
defence. The fearless person is seldom, if ever, attacked,

440

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1958

Perhaps, that lesson might be applied to human beings
also. If we meet other people in a friendly way, they also
become friendly. But if we are afraid of them or if we show
our dislike to them, then they behave in the same manner.

These are simple truths which the world has known for
ages. But even so, the world forgets and the people of one
country hate and fear the people of another country; and
because they are afraid, they are sometimes foolish enough
to fight each other.

Children should be wiser. At any rate, the children who
read Shankar’s Children’s Number are expected to be more
sensible.

ON THE PRESS

THE PRESS AND INDO-PAKISTAN DIFFERENCES

G entlemen, I am happy to have this opportunity o£ meet-
ing you, the representatives of the press in India and
Pakistan. This is a rather remarkable occasion, for the editors
of Pakistan and India are meeting to confer together. What-
ever we may think of the virtues and failings of the press, it is
obvious that it plays a very important part in our lives; it
moulds people’s minds and thoughts and thus aliects the
policies of the Government, if not always directly. Therefore,
when we have to deal with any major problem, it is important
that the press should — if I may say so with all humility — give
the right lead. We have developed a fairly widespread and
effective press both in India and Pakistan. Perhaps, it is not
as good as it might be, though it is fast improving. When I
say it is not as good as it might be, what I mean is that it has
not yet adjusted itself to the changed conditions in the two
independent countries. Of course, it is always difficult for a
government or an independent party or for the press to
adjust itself to times such as the present.

In India — and I am sure that must apply equally to
Pakistan — many people, though they talk a great deal about
the independence of their country, do not quite live up to
the fact. Old habits of thought which developed when we
were under British rule still persist; old suspicions and old
ways of looking at things still continue. Many of the editorials
which I read today might well have been written about ten
years ago — regardless of the fact that India and Pakistan are
independent countries. The editorials on our foreign policy
and domestic policy, for instance, are governed far too much
by our old mental habits and suspicions. Naturally, we are
all governed by our old habits and reactions, and we have

Address at the joint session of the Pakistan and Indian Newspaper Editors'
Conference, New Delhi, May 4, 1950

442 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

not yet been able to adapt ourselves to the new scheme of
things.

Now, this applies as much to political parties as it applies
to the press. Take, for instance, the great organization in
which I have had the honour of working for the greater part
of my life — the Indian National Congress. For twenty or
thirty years, we functioned as a party or something more
than a party in opposition to British rule. Our movement
for political freedom was carried out on a big scale and,
ultimately, we succeeded in achieving freedom on the
political plane. The thirty years of our struggle for indepen-
dence were a particular kind of experience; we became
accustomed to opposition, to struggle, to fighting and to
looking at the picture from the point of view of a semi-
revolutionary organization which sometimes became wholly
revolutionary. We trained our people in certain methods of
action. They were more or less peaceful but they were
effective and in a sense revolutionary. Of course, we trained
large numbers of people to deal with the masses of men and
women so that the latter would not be frightened. But that
was not exactly the training that was required of us subse-
quently in the running of our Government and in the run-
ning of a constructive machinery in the country. So, we
come up against the difficulty that all our training has been
of a particular type. It was certainly good training, because
it built up character and strength. Nonetheless, it was
deficient in some ways. Our old habits of thought still persist
and the average man in the street cannot fully realize that
the country is now run by his own Government and that it is
part of him. Thus, people treat the present Government
more or less in the way they treated the British Government.
That is what I call a carry-over from the old days.

Also, people treat international problems more or less as
we treated them before we became independent. Our
international outlook in the old days was fundamentally
anti-imperialist; the British Empire in India was the big
symbol of imperialism and our attitude was one of anti-
imperialism. Of course, now, too, it continues to be one of
anti-imperialism on the world stage. Nevertheless, I do find,

THE PRESS AND IND0-PAK.ISTAN DIFFERENCES

443

often enough, that the old and rather limited viewpoint still
governs our attitude towards world problems.

I am mentioning this to you, because it affects the press,
perhaps, even more than it affects the average man in the
street. In such matters, the press gives the lead which
gradually sinks into people’s minds. A person forms his
opinion about distant occurrences by the news he gets from
the press. Very few individuals are competent enough to
know the facts or form an opinion independently. They are
naturally guided by what the press says.

You know very well that the last two and a half years,
since India and Pakistan achieved independence, have been
very abnormal years and in many ways very bad years for us,
bad in the sense that there has been continuous conflict and
continuous suspicion. In fact, there have been major
upheavals. Obviously, the press is not responsible for the
major upheavals. In due course, historians will give their
verdict as to who is responsible. But the fact remains that
we have been contending all this time, not only against
physical effects, occurrences and incidents but also against
something intangible, which is, all the same, very evident.
We have been working in a background of fear and some-
times of hatred and suspicion. There is a desire to cause
injury to the other party, even though that injury may recoil
on us and cause injury to us instead. That, obviously, is an
atmosphere which is very bad for any country to live in and
that atmosphere, if it continues, poisons not only the relations
between the two countries but also the lives of the people in
the two countries. Even now, we have not quite escaped the
ill effects of this atmosphere.

Some recent events, more especially the talks which I
have had with the Prime Minister of Pakistan, have resulted
in an agreement which has produced a very marked change
in the tense atmosphere. This change was immediately
reflected, to a large extent, in the press of the two countries.
This is, indeed, remarkable. I have often sat down and
thought about how it happened. If we analyse the Agree-
ment, we may not like some of its clauses; but the fact
remains that the really important thing is not the contents of

444 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

the Agreement but the fact that it came about. Its real
importance is not in its details but in the fact that there has
been an agreement — an agreement of the right type.

It is clear that the reaction to the Agreement represents a
certain urge and desire in the people’s minds. Large numbers
of people were rather afraid of what was happening and
wanted an escape, a way of putting an end to the existing
bitterness. They were frustrated; but they could not do
anything. In fact, no individual could do anything when
millions were moved by passion and fear. But, as soon as
a way was found, there was a powerful reaction which
showed that the basic feelings and urges of the people of
India and Pakistan were essentially against the continuance
of the poisonous atmosphere. Everywhere there was a desire
to seize on anything that brought security and peace of mind
to them. In spite of this we have obviously not solved our
problems — what is more, we are not going to solve them
suddenly. Nevertheless, the fact that there is a very healthy
desire in the minds of the people is, in itself, a most hopeful
sign.

Now, the first thing that we should be clear about in our
minds is what exactly our aims are. Speaking as the Prime
Minister of this country, I should say that our domestic aim
is the elimination of poverty and the economic advancement
of the people. In this matter, not only Pakistan and India
but also the other countries of Asia are alike, because their
view of world conditions is dominated by the urge for the
primary necessities of life for their people.

In Europe and in America there are many problems.
Europe suffered very greatly in the last war and many
countries there were reduced to a state of utter ruin. Never-
theless, generally speaking, the problems that face Europe
are not essentially those of fulfilling the primary necessities,
such as food, clothing, shelter and so on. In India as also in
Pakistan, however, we cannot afford to preoccupy ourselves
with international affairs. 1 suppose we will have to play
some part in them but our first problem is to feed our people,
to clothe them, to educate them and to give them shelter.

These problems, normally speaking, were solved in

THE PRESS AND INDO-PAK.ISTAN DIFFERENCES

445

Europe long ago. Now that their problems are more or less
solved, the people have time and energy to think of other
problems and other countries. For instance, take what is
called power politics. Power politics has existed in the world
ever since organized nations came to exist. There has been
power politics in Europe in varying degrees, and now that
their essential needs are largely satisfied, the European people
are able to move on to other spheres and let their minds
range over wider fields.

Europe and America, having passed the first stage, are
likely to be concerned more with the second stage, while we
in Asia arc still at the first stage, that of fulfilling the primary
necessities. The second stage will come to us, too; we cannot
avoid it; we are thinking about it. We are, probably, not
quite so excited about the second stage as the people of
America and Europe. Clearly, Pakistan and India have
something in common and yet we have to fare the fact that a
tremendous mental barrier has arisen between the two
countries.

Now, what are we to do about it? Let us forget the
present and look ten or twenty years ahead. Unless we have
a clear picture of what we are aiming at, we shall simply
drift about, not knowing where we are going. We should
always aim at something definite. Of course, we may be
pushed about from place to place or be forced by factors
beyond our control to do things we do not consider
advantageous. Nevertheless, we as a government, we as a
people — and that includes the press — must have some general
idea of what we propose to do, leaving aside domestic or
economic improvement. Are we going to encourage continu-
ous conflict between India and Pakistan? Are we looking
forward to a stage when a conflict will become inevitable;
ought we to prepare for it or do we feel that a conflict is not
inevitable, that a conflict is disastrous and that it should be
avoided?

True, as a Prime Minister, I must take every precaution
to protect my country, to ensure that my country is not attack-
ed, that aggression does not take place and that the country is
not placed in a difficult position. Every government has got

446

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

to do that. No doubt, the Government of Pakistan has also
to do that. That is admitted. But do you think that a conflict
is inevitable? Today, some people think that a third world
war is inevitable and they prepare for it. They do not like
war; most people in the world do not want war. Nevertheless
by pressure of circumstances they talk about it and prepare
for it, terrible preparations for armament go on and fear
spreads everywhere. Are we going to take it that, whatever
the consequences, a conflict between India and Pakistan is
inevitable in the nature of things?

Let me put it to you that it is a very serious thing. If we
have the fear of conflict in our minds, then inevitably all our
actions and all our thoughts will be governed by that and we
can never really get out of it, because something that we may
do in India will have reactions in Pakistan and something
that they do in Pakistan will react on us. The smallest
incidents, which would otherwise go unnoticed, will assume
undue significance and become part of a larger picture.

One of the big things that the gentlemen of the news-
paper world must jealize is that Asia, after nearly 300 years,
has turned the corner. Every country in Asia is today passing
through a stage of transition. None of these countries is strong
enough in the economic sense or in any other sense to pose as
a great Power. Sometimes, people talk as if India were a big
Power. Although we are not, we have the potentialities of a
big Power. It is mostly tall talk. We hate got rid of certain
encumbrances; we have the road clear, more or less, provided
we do not destroy ourselves by getting involved in internecine
quarrels.

Their geographical position being what it is, India and
Pakistan cannot help playing an important role in Asia. If
India and Pakistan follow more or less a common policy, it
will make a big difference today. If India and Pakistan follow
a contrary policy and are opposed to each other, they will
obviously be neutralizing each other and cannot play that
role. Any common sense approach to the matter shows that
India and Pakistan can only do great harm to both.

It may disable them for a generation and render them
incapable of making the progress which is so necessary if they

THE PRESS AND INDO-PAKISTAN DIFFERENCES 447

are to play a larger role in Asian and world affairs. This
seems to be quite correct logically. It is true, I think, that
India and Pakistan, from the standpoint of geography,
history, culture and economics, are so connected that
normally they should co-operate with each other in the
fullest measure. We should try to develop a common
approach to foreign policy, defence and many other things;
we should come closer together in regard to these policies
and co-operate. That would be the natural course for the
two countries.

I am perfectly convinced in my own mind that, unless
some catastrophe were to overwhelm us, this is inevitable.
Because of our very close contacts we cannot be indifferent to
each other. We can either be more than friends or become
more than enemies.

When individual or group contacts are broken, inevitably
hostility and bitterness are produced. What has happened
here? A closer contact is bound to come about because it is
to the advantage of both; I speak of sheer opportunism and
not idealism at all. Therefore, I say it is quite inevitable.
How it is to happen I do not know but everything points to
that end; and in spite of all the terrible experiences we have
had during the last two and a half years, every approach of
logic and reasonable talk leads to this conclusion and every
other approach contrary to this leads to something which
is very dangerous for Pakistan and for India. It may take a
generation for us to make good. This conflict and wasteful
effort will wipe us out from the face of the earth. The natural
conclusion is that we should try our utmost to develop
friendliness and not do anything which is contrary to the
whole course of our history and to the modern currents in the
world.

Ultimately, we cannot go against the currents of history.
I am quite sure of the desire of our people and so I have
arrived at this conclusion. It is clear that, though we may
have been partitioned and divorced from each other, our own
historical, cultural and other contacts — geographical,
economic and other — are so fundamental that, despite every-
thing that happened and despite passion and prejudice and

448

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

even gross inhumanity, ultimately the basic ties will survive.
These are the things that will keep us together, unless India
and Pakistan prove to be backward even culturally. Then,
of course, all this will have only been talk and nothing else.
If India and Pakistan do not ultimately come together
they will only prove that they have no cultural standards to
maintain. We may talk a great deal about national culture,
Muslim culture and Hindu culture; but those who talk most
often know least about it.

We have recently faced a very difficult, critical and
painful situation — I refer to West and East Bengal and Assam
and partly to other places — and, as I said in another place,
we just managed to save ourselves from falling over the edge
of the precipice and are now beginning to turn in a different
direction. This turning was remarkable, although it is true
that many terrible evils still continue. Problems are not
solved by merely looking in a different direction. Millions
of people have been uprooted and have greatly suffered; and
it is no good trying to be over-optimistic. I am talking about
the point of view, if you like, of sheer opportunism for a
practical, objective approach to our problems. We do not
want to be swept away by the passion of the moment but we
must realize that passion docs exist. We have gone through
painful experiences and, even now, tens of thousands of
people are going through painful experiences. The exodus is
continuing and those who have stayed behind have not,
obviously, got rid of the fear that oppresses them. How are
we to meet the situation?

There can be three ways of meeting it. One is to think
that this kind of thing will go on happening and nothing will
stop it. We simply go from one disaster to another as the cul-
mination in a Greek tragedy. We cannot prevent it; therefore,
we simply accept it. The other way is, since reason and logic
point in that direction, that we must try our best in the faith
that we will succeed. I do not mean that we should minimize
the dangers; nevertheless, we must go in the direction of
peace and co-operation and try to root out the fear that dwells
in the minds of millions of people. There is also a third
attitude. ‘It is good to have peace and co-operation; but we

THE PRESS AND INDO-PAKISTAN DIFFERENCES

449

do not see it anywhere — not much of it, at any rate. We do
not think that this attempt will succeed at all. We are
prepared to see how it works. We will wait and see what
happens.’

I confess that, constituted as I am, I dislike intensely this
kind of negative, passive approach — the third one. I can
quite understand full-blooded opposition and bear with
people who say ‘we cannot have peace: why talk about it?’
I disagree with them of course but I can understand their
attitude. What I cannot understand and have no sympathy
for is the weak approach. For us to watch and wait and see
when powerful forces are at work is characteristic of the
weak approach. This is not the approach which a strong
nation or a strong man takes with regard to vital problems.
Besides, I think, it is an approach which takes you nowhere.

I, personally, have arrived at the conclusion that we
should have a strong approach, a positive approach,
a constructive approach and an approach which has behind it,
in spite of every difficulty, a large measure of faith and
confidence. If I have that confidence, if you have that con-
fidence, it will spread to millions of other people. I am no
prophet, I am no astrologer to say what the future will be.
But I can govern my actions to a large extent and I do not
see why I should be passive and be pushed about. If I
consider my policy to be right, I propose to follow it to the
best of my ability and strength. Having had a fair measure
of experience for BO to 35 years of my life, not so much of
governmental ways of working but of mass feeling, of how the
masses feel and move, I am not afraid of the masses. I have
always had a large measure of faith and confidence in the
masses of people, whoever they are. If I have put my
confidence in them, they have been good enough to respond
by placing their confidence in me. Therefore, I approach
this problem, not with doubt, not idealistically, not weakly
but having come to this logical, opportunist conclusion.

How are we to go about this? We have to approach the
problem keeping in view the basic thing — the general
atmosphere. How far we can change it is a very important
factor. The second thing is how far we can implement the

450

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

various details connected with it. With regard to the basic
feeling, let us take East Bengal. The minority community,
the Hindus in East Bengal, are obviously frightened. They
feel they have no security of life. Therefore, they feel like
coming away and I can understand their position.

This also applies to the minority community in West
Bengal and we might add that a large number of Muslims
have gone away from U.P. and Rajasthan also. I entirely
understand this because they are frightened. Maybe, the
fear was not justified; but the fact is that they have gone.
We have really to face a fear complex. Fear is a terrible
thing; it is the worst possible thing that can happen to people
because it is infectious. How are we to get rid of this fear?

I do not mind if people want to go away from one country
to another. But let them not be driven out by fear; let them
not go because life is insecure and they do not know what the
morrow will bring. How can we remove fear? The Govern-
ment at the top and the large number of officials can do a
good deal. But, obviously, the press can do a great deal more.
Until fear is overcome, this problem will not be solved. You
saw the tremendous upheaval in the Punjab in August 1947;
first in West Punjab and then in other areas, terrible things
happened. Massacres took place on a vast scale; you saw
elemental forces at work. No government could have either
created or controlled it. That particular upheaval stopped
but fear continued. You saw the exodus of population from
Sind and East Bengal continuing, not because any major
incident had happened there, not because there was any
killing but because of fear. Sometimes, there might have
been economic pressure. Anyhow, by and large, things were
settling down, when this situation developed in Bengal.

Again we see a large scale exodus on both sides and fear
at work. There is no end to it yet. Not only in Bengal but
elsewhere also. This is an impossible situation. So, we have
to instil confidence in the minorities. We have to make the
majority fed that it is not only their responsibility, it is not
only their duty, it is not only for their good name and credit
that they have to try and expel fear from the hearts of the
minorities but also from the point of view of the narrowest

THE PRESS AND INDO-PAKISTAN DIFFERENCES

451

opportunism. If they fail, everybody will suffer.

The large numbers of refugees and evacuees who have
been pushed out of their homes need a lot of sympathy. When
they go to a new place and find no employment, they begin
to bear grudges and want to revenge themselves on others.
This feeling spreads. I think we must, first of all, resolve
that every effort will be made to check the forces that spread
the fear that pushed out the minorities from where they were,
whether in any part of East Pakistan or West Pakistan or
India.

Many things have happened, including the enactment
of evacuee laws. Normally speaking, all these Acts are
justified. Then, there is the increasing fear in the minds of
the minority communities. It affects the whole atmosphere.
I do not suppose it is reasonable that the millions who have
come away should go back but a considerable number may
still go back. In any case, it is essential that conditions of
security must be created.

As I said, a major change in the atmosphere is necessary.
I do not wish to suppress facts; I do not wish to distort facts;
but, nevertheless, you can always put the matter in a way
so as not to inflame the public mind. Every single factor that
frightens the minority community should be analysed as far
as possible and fear removed. If the economic conditions
affect them, you must analyse them. If the housing conditions
affect them, you should analyse them. You are asking the
migrants to go back. Obviously, when they go back, they
must have their houses. We must give back their houses.
There is also the working of the permit system and so many
other things. All these matters should be considered all over
India, Pakistan, Eastern Pakistan, Western Pakistan, Sind
and so on.

As I said, the problem of evacuee property somehow
affects people more vitally. Personally, if I may say so, I have
never had any strong feeling about property. In fact,
generally speaking, I dislike the system of property or too
much of property for an individual. But I do see that people
attach more importance to property than even to their lives.
Where property questions are involved, they become more

452

JAWAHARI.AL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

excited than when problems of life and death are involved.
Therefore, if we could deal with the property questions in a
reasonable way, if we could deal with them in an equitable
way, it would go a long way to solve many of our problems.

Take the matter of the canal waters. It is a problem which
is eminently suitable for adjustment by both the parties.
If we solve our problems by adjustment, if we could try our
best to remove fear, to make the majority feel that it is their
duty to protect the minorities in their own interest and
remove fear from the minds of the minorities and remove all
those little pinpricks that affect them, I think you will find
the situation changing radically. If we are honest, we must
remove not only fear but the other difficulties also. This
involves the happiness of a vast number of people and has
become a question of good name for India and Pakistan;
their futures are involved and if the problem of the minorities
is not solved, the trouble in both countries will go on
multiplying.

Well, I have ventured to place before you my ideas
frankly and I hope that you, who wield such a great deal of
influence through your newspapers, will use your influence
in solving our problems and removing the sense of insecurity
in the minority communities. Big things are happening in
the world and big things will happen. A month ago, there
was mounting tension between India and Pakistan and there
was a possibility of conflict. People became afraid that the
trouble might spread to other parts of the world; and then
India and Pakistan ceased to be of much value in world
affairs as they were wrapped up in their own problems.
When this Agreement was concluded, it raised high hopes
and the world saw that we would not be swept off our feet
and that we were capable of steering ourselves away from
disaster.

In this context, we immediately became more important
than we were when we were tied up with our own difficulties.
So, we must work the Agreement to the advantage of both
India and Pakistan. There are things in which Pakistan can,
in some ways, help India and India can help Pakistan
similarly. There is nothing that should come in the way of

FREEDOM AND LICENCE

45S

India or Pakistan helping each other.

I hope your talks will lead to the removal of such
differences as there are between India and Pakistan. We
should have correspondents of newspapers going from one
country to another and the difficulties that have arisen should
be •'removed; it doesn’t matter if bad news comes. All possible
obstructions should be removed. I also hope that some
machinery will be evolved by which newspapermen of both
countries will be able to discuss their problems jointly and,
ultimately, create the atmosphere which is so essential.

FREEDOM AND LICENCE

M r President and friends, you have referred to me and
addressed me as Prime Minister and, perhaps, you have
also invited me in that capacity. Nevertheless, I would like to
speak to you, not as Prime Minister, although I cannot be
rid of that fact, but informally, as friends meeting together in
earnest converse to consider difficult and baffling problems,
for we do meet under the stress of heavy circumstances today.

Now, if this is so, it is easy enough for us or for anybody
else to start criticizing people and condemning nations.
But the whole point is: what are we driving at? If we have
a clear objective before us, are we going towards it by what
we say or do or are we moving away from it? That is the
test. In normal times, it does not much matter — within
limits, of course — what one says or does, because it cannot
do very much harm; and even if it does harm, we can always
pull ourselves together. But in times of crisis, in times of grave
emergency, what is said or done does matter very much; a
wrong word or a wrong action may have very far-reaching
results.

The press, it is repeatedly said, performs a very essential
function in our lives today, especially in the life of democratic

Speech at the All-India Newspaper Editors* Conference, New Delhi,
December 5, 1950 1

30—11 DFD/63

494

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1959

countries. In other places, that function is performed under
authoritarian direction, while in democratic countries it is
supposed to say just what it likes within the limitations of
the law which are — I must say — pretty wide. Now, this is a
tremendous burden. The burden, of course, is inevitable
when power or privilege comes to a group. We won our
independence and we take pride in it. But, obviously,
independence or freedom is not a one-sided affair; it carries
enormous responsibilities, such as that of defending that
independence when it is attacked — defending it, not only from
external attack but, what is even more important, from an
internal weakening.

After all, the thing that a nation must beware of — more
than external danger — is internal rot. Freedom carries with
it the obvious responsibility, which every one realizes, of
defending it from external attack. But, ultimately, the other
responsibility is more important and that is to maintain the
inner strength, the morale, the self-confidence of a nation,
which can be done only by following what I roughly call the
right advice and, more especially, developing the habit of
dispassionate thought and the calm consideration of problems.
This becomes even more important in times of crisis, when
people are apt to become excited and hysterical and are
inclined to believe every vague rumour.

Newspapers are, of course, of all kinds and in India there
are thousands of them. There are responsible newspapers;
there are newspapers which are sometimes responsible,
sometimes not; there are newspapers which are more irres-
ponsible than responsible; and there are some sheets which
seem to excel only in flights of imagination and other acts of
irresponsibility. Fortunately, the latter are not important.
In the old days, it was or at least was thought to be the
function of the Government to suppress the newspapers that
had an evil tendency, in the opinion of the Government.
That, of course, is an utterly wrong approach, because you
cannot cure the evil by trying to suppress it.

What, then, are we to do? For, sometimes, the evil may
grow and become dangerous to public welfare. Obviously,
the right way is for an organization like yours to interest

FREEDOM AND LICENCE

455

itself in it directly, not, of course, in the sense of punishing
people — there is no question of punishing — but of forming
such a strong body of opinion among those who are respon-
sible for the newspapers that any back-slider can be pulled
up; or, at any rate, it can be made known to the public that
the person concerned is a back-slider and is not acting rightly.

I think that is very important, because while on the one
hand the main organs of the Indian press have shown a fairly
high standard of responsibility in dealing with news or
situations generally, on the other there are some periodicals
which amaze me by their utter irresponsibility. > o doubt,
people read them and, no doubt, they are affected by them.
How are we going to deal with this matter? It concerns the
wider question of privilege and power having to bear respon-
sibility. Mr Stanley Baldwin, the Prime Minister of England,
once became angry with the press in England and said that
the pi ess had the harlot’s privilege and power without
responsibility. That was an extreme way of putting the matter
but the point is that when we have power or right, inevitably
an obligation follows that right. You cannot separate the
two.

We, who have been fighting for our rights and have
finally achieved them, are apt to forget that a right by itself
is incomplete and, in fact, cannot last long if the obligations
which accompany that right are forgotten by the nation or by
a greater part of it. Whether as individuals or citizens or
groups, we still think too much, in terms of rights and
privileges and too little in terms of Obligations. That weakens
a nation and we become then, merely critics and complain
without anything constructive to contribute. That applies
to the nation as a whole but much more so to the press. That
is to say, the press fought for its own freedom from govern-
mental interference in the old days and, gradually, step by
step it has achieved wider freedom. I think I can say that
whatever our other failings might be — by ‘our’ I mean the
Government’s — at the present moment the amount of free-
dom of expression that is allowed to or indulged in by the
press can hardly be exceeded in any country in the world.
I shall be quite frank with you. Much that appears because

450

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1955

of that freedom seems to me exceedingly dangerous. To my
mind, the freedom of the press is not just a slogan from the
larger point of view but it is an essential attribute of the
democratic process. I have no doubt that even if the Govern-
ment dislikes the liberties taken by the press and considers
them dangerous, it is wrong to interfere with the freedom of
the press. By imposing restriction you do not change any-
thing; you merely suppress the public manifestation of certain
things, thereby causing the idea and thought underlying
them to spread further. Therefore, I would rather have a
completely free press with all the dangers involved in the
wrong use of that freedom than a suppressed or regulated
press.

Without responsibility, freedom gradually becomes some-
thing very near licence. Licence is a vague word and I do not
like it; but it is being used in this connection and I can think
of no better word at the moment. Licence ultimately means
mental disintegration; and if there is mental disintegration in
the body politic, obviously it affects every limb of it. That
applies to the newspapers also. If, with the freedom they
have, the element of licence and utter irresponsibility
increases then not only will it endanger their freedom but
injure their reputation. We should have freedom by all
means but we should try to maintain a certain integrity of
approach in public activities, including the press. Of course,
we know that newspapermen and journalists of the past and
in the present have laid down in high terms what the press
should be and I have no doubt that responsible newspaper-
men, at any rate, are always trying to reach that standard.
Anyhow, it seems to me that the only right approach to it
is for newspapermen and their organization to tackle the
problem and it is not within the competence of an external
agency to do so, even though that is the Government.
They should raise their standards themselves, not by punish-
ment — because they are not an executive branch of the
Government — but by making it clear to their erring brethren
that what they do is bad. I have noticed that when certain
periodicals behave in an irresponsible way, I seldom find
any criticism of their conduct in the other periodicals. I

FREEDOM AND LICENCE

457

know it is a bad thing for newspapers to call one another
names; nor do I wish to encourage controversy between
newspapermen. What I mean is that a responsible body
has the right to pull up any member of that profession, if he
is flagrantly wrong. Of course, every person has the right to
' express his views and I am not denying that; I am censuring
only the utter irresponsibility and the vulgarity that news-
papers of no great repute may descend to. I think such a
body should firmly — politely if you like but firmly — make
it clear that they do not approve of this kind of thing. Thus
they will be giving a lead to the public in this resprct.

I mentioned vulgarity . It is an odd world we live in, a
rapidly changing world. We all hope that, *n spite of
difficulties and disasters, something good will ultimately
emerge; but the one very grave and disheartening feature
of the present day is a rapid fall in mental and moral
standards all over the world. We disintegrate; we gradually
go to pieces. Ultimately, we become, because of the process
of disintegration, somewhat neurotic and hysterical and quite
unable to judge anything. After all, unless we have certain
values in life, life becomes rather empty; unless we have
certain values in our public and in our mental conduct, it
becomes difficult to see whither we are going and what we
are trying to do. Great countries cannot live from hand to
mouth, so far as standards and basic objectives are concerned.
Those of you who have had personal experience of the last
30 years or so of India’s history will have noticed periods in
this history in which, one might say, a high moral tone
prevailed among the people. The people are still the same.
They are not different. They hav the same failings and the
same virtues. It is not easy to hange an entire nation
suddenly. But you can make them ihink of their virtues and
strength or of their weaknesses and failings. Well, during
these past thirty years, we did, I think, in our public life
attain, often enough, high standards — unusually high
standards. That was due to a great man who led us and who
set those standards himself but the fact remains that we did
attain them and because of that it is all the more noticeable
and distressing to find such low standards at present. We

458

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1955

have to fight against these. Vulgarity, however, is a world
phenomenon and by no means peculiarly Indian. But, any-
how, we have lo deal with it. Life, after all, may be considered
from many points of view — political, economic and other;
these are very important but surely there is something beyond
all these; otherwise, everything that you gain by political
thought and economic welfare, would be without significance.
It is most distressing to see the gradual passing of what was
gracious in life and instead a gradual extension and increase
of what is vulgar. An individual may be good or bad, vulgar
or otherwise. But it is a dangerous thing for a country to go
down the scale of values in this way. In this matter, the press
can perform a most important function. It can render much
help in combating vulgarity. The views of a newspaper on
political issues may not be accepted. I rather doubt myself
if newspapers have any very great influence on political
opinion. They give the news, of course; but I rather doubt
if they have any great influence politically. You have seen
in other countries — democratic countries — how a great
number of newspapers have supported one party while
another has won the elections. So, it appears that newspapers
do not have the same effect on public opinion as people
imagine they do. I am sure they wield tremendous power,
not only through day to day news but through the colour
they give it, through the restraint or looseness of expression,
through vulgarity or its absence. The daily dose, regularly
given, affects the reader’s mind. If you tell him to do this
or that, he may resist; but the slight daily dose, if it is right,
improves his mind and, if it is wrong, corrupts it. There is
a certain lack of social conscience in this country in spite
of our high ideals. I react strongly against the idea of
regimentation anywhere and much more so in a vast country
like India, where there are so many different approaches, so
many different aspects, to life. But I am also against the
loose and incorrect behaviour of the people and their lack of
discipline. This weakens us physically but, what is worse, it
weakens us psychologically, too. In this matter also, I think,
the press can help tremendously, not only by building up
a better and a higher social conscience but also a code of

FREEDOM AND LICENCE

459

social behaviour in the little things of life. We tend to think
that we need not worry about the little things of life because
we are preoccupied with the big things of life. That is utterly
and fundamentally wrong. If you are, let us say, wedded or
attracted to the ideal of truth and beauty, you cannot follow
that ideal if you deal with the ugly and untruthful in the
small things of life. We take pride in saying that the civiliza-
tion of the West is a material one and is opposed to ours which
is spiritual. Having said so, we indulge in things which totally
lack the normal social proprieties. We say we are above
them but, as a matter of fact, it is not quite clear where the
question of spirituality comes in. I do not believe that a person
who ignores the small things of life, the small truths, the
small decencies, the small pleasantnesses, the sm. ll gracious-
ness, can undertake anything big in a big way.

It is not a question of show or, should I say, ostentation.
Of course, ostentation itself is the height of vulgarity; but
the deliberate rejection of all refinement can also be a
deliberate and rather aggressive way of saying ‘oh, we don’t
care for the fineries of life and, therefore, we go about in
unwashed condition and with our clothes and our appearance
unkempt.’

I referred just now, in the past few words I said in Hindi,
to the news that was splashed in big headlines in the morning
papers today. It was about the possibility of my going to
Washington and said that I had been summoned there for
discussions. Now, as far as I know, there is absolutely no
foundation for all this; it is only excitement on the part of
some people and a search for a way out or a remedy for the
world’s ills that leads them to these flights of imagination.
This particular thing may not do much harm, although it
does a little always. Even so, I beg of you, more especially
in these days, to be careful. I will see that steps are taken
about the development of a liaison machinery between the
press and the Government, more especially the External
Affairs Ministry of the Government. It is very desirable and,
so far as we are concerned, we should like to help in every
way. It is a difficult matter, of course, always to know where
to draw the line in regard to matters which are consider-

460

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

ed secret and which, if they leak out, would embarrass us
greatly in our relations with other countries. Now, it all
depends ultimately, if I may say so quite frankly, on the
measure of cQ-operation received from the press in keeping
secrecy. You can, of course, count on every co-operation from
us.

We are meeting here today in the very extraordinary
circumstances of the world and there are very grave crises
facing us. I confess that the only way I can see myself
approaching these big questions is in a spirit of deep earnest-
ness and a great deal of humility. There are big questions
affecting the future of the world, affecting the future happi-
ness or misery or destruction of millions of people and no
man can consider them without deep misgivings about his
own capacity to show the right path and I am quite frank
with you about this matter. I rather doubt if any country,
even the biggest of them all, can have an adequate sense of
direction. The matter is too complicated, too big and all we
can do is, first of all, to have an earnest desire for something.
What is that something? We will surely find, in the
immediate context of today, that something is peace. There
are many other things besides. But today peace is most
important. If that is so, then how are we to attain peace or,
at any rate, help in realizing it and avoiding that terrible
catastrophe — war? Surely apart from any particular
proposal that a country may put. forward, a great deal
depends on the basic approach. If you want peace among
different countries, it is hardly a sensible or a logical thing
to go about slanging one another, irritating one another,
pointing out the faults and errors and sins of one another.
Your argument may be perfectly valid and you may be
justified in putting it forward. But my point is that the
argument does not lead to the atmosphere of peace. It leads
to the closing up of the people’s minds and when minds are
closed they become impervious to reason. Therefore, it
seems to me, what is important today is that we should stop
this business of running down one another and keep our
feelings within ourselves and then try to find some way of
stopping the rot.

FREEDOM AND LICENCE

461

The next step would be to consider these problems in this
slightly new atmosphere and try to find a solution, even if it is
a temporary one. The next step would, in that case, be
towards a more durable solution. No country must endanger
the world’s peace merely on grounds of prestige or anger.
That is all I can say. I feel and am quite sure that vast
numbers of people, in every country all over the world, desire
peace. Personally, I am prepared to go a step further and say
that there is no government in the world which really desires
war. There are, of course, governments which may be
impelled by circumstances to believe that war is inevitable.
That is a different thing and somehow we get entangled in
a net and thus, without any desire, we are forced to go to
war. Whether that is an example of determinism in human
affairs I do not know; but I do think that every individual
in his individual capacity as also largei groups, including
nations, should fight against anything they consider evil and
not submit to the fatal idea of determinism and thus allow
themselves to be overwhelmed by disaster. So, I hope that
the present-day India will throw all her weight in favour of a
dispassionate consideration of the problems of peace.

We here and elsewhere are apt to say that this country is
good or bad, as though countries were solid blocks which are
good or bad. They consist of millions of human beings — very
decent human beings, very peaceful human beings. Govern-
ments may go wrong and more so politicians. But do not ever
talk of countries and peoples as bad. It is misleading to talk
like that. There is a great deal of common humanity in all
of us, in all the countries, although we may differ outwardly
a great deal. Let us encourage that common humanity and
that friendliness and let us not lose our heads, whatever
happens.

THE MODERN NEWSPAPER

T t was very good of you to invite me again to this session of

the All-India Newspaper Editors’ Conference. In a sense, I
feel at home here amongst you because apart from the fact
that many of you are friends, I have often enough been on
the fringe of the newspaper world and so have sometimes
felt that I was entitled, to some extent, to call myself a
newspaperman. Nevertheless, I feel some hesitation —
perhaps that is not the right word — and do not quite know
what you expect me to say or what I should say. There is a
tendency, which I wish to resist, of just saying something in
the nature of a platitude, of being impertinent enough to
offer good advice which is seldom welcome to anybody. So,
what am I to say?

I feel sometimes that I am growing old. It is an un-
comfortable feeling and one of the signs of old age is that
one does not approve of or like some of the new things. We
become rather conservative and any development seems to
signify some kind of degradation to those who are getting on
in years. Now, I should like to give you one example. I just
cannot make out why people see anything amusing in what
are called comic strips. I cannot stand them for an instant
and, mind you, it is not for lack of time. I read them
and I am supposed to laugh; instead, I feel very gloomy
after I have read them. They represent a new development
from overseas which our newspapers are taking to. And
I suppose they pay good money for it; but, as far as I am
concerned, I would even pay money to escape from them if
I could.

Now, that is an odd instance but this flashy type of
journalism rather oppresses me. It does not matter but it
might matter very much if I, in my conservatism, if you
like to call it that, or old age, drew people’s attention to
wrong things or educated men in the wrong way. It is a
platitude to talk about the great opportunities and power
the newspapers and the press have in the modern world.

Speech at the All-India Newspaper Editors’ Conference, New Ddhi,
September 17, 1952

THE MODERN NEWSPAPER

46S

That power — wherever there is any power — can be exercised
both in the right and the wrong way.

Scientific developments can be utilized, either for the
advancement of humanity or for its destruction. Similarly,
education may be of the right type or the wrong type; it may
tone up the society or tone down the society. You talk and
we talk and all of us talk about the freedom of the press.
Every person, who has been conditioned by the democratic
process to some extent, believes in the various freedoms.
He would rather allow a little wrong to happen than
suppress it, because if you attempt to suppress a wrong type
of thing, a right type of thing may also be suppressed along
with it and it is bad to suppress a right thing. Therefore, one
tolerates a wrong thing, to some extent, so th..t the right
may flourish, so that the right may ultimately overcome
the wrong For my part, I do think that basically it is
dangerous to suppress thought and the expression of thought
in any way, because this may, besides suppressing a particular
good thing, produce many kinds of evil which stunt the
growth of a social group. Believing this, I come up constantly
against instances where this freedom of expression is utilized
not meiely to express the wrong thing but to produce an
atmosphere and a mental climate which, I think, is not good
and which lowers cultural as well as other standards. When
this kind of thing is done on a large scale and done from day
to day I am worried, though not for political reasons; I think
in terms of the wider implications of the word ‘culture’ and
of the increase and propagation of vulgarity which surely
cannot be a good thing. I do not even say that we should
suppress vulgarity; perhaps, a little vulgarity is good occa-
sionally. Nevertheless, if the mental climate encourages
vulgarity, I doubt if any one can consider it good. What is
one to do in circumstances where one comes across what
I call a rather vulgar and indecent approach from the point
of view of culture? What is one to do about it? One can
meet it with the right approach in the hope that right will
win in the end. When you are up against a mental climate
which encourages the things an immature mind likes, then
you cannot get a chance to mature or grow up.

464

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

We talk a good deal about education; it is obviously a
basic thing and a most important thing. Yet, I am sometimes
a little frightened by the type of education that is given and
the results that it produces. This does not mean that educa-
tion is bad. But sometimes, the wrong type of education,
instead of educating, merely produces, in an immature and
illiterate mind, the impression that it is literate and knows
everything. Any one in a position of responsibility has at
least to ponder over these questions if not to decide them.
When we talk of democracy, it is not enough to have
some kind of political structure which may be called demo-
cratic. Obviously, it must have a background and basis in
the masses of the people, in their education, in the kind
of news that is supplied, in the other processes that we
encourage or discourage.

You talk about the freedom of the press. Should a person
bring out a sheet with the liberty simply to say and do every
kind of wrong thing, under the aegis of the noble doctrine
of the freedom of the press? Obviously, anybody can bring
out anything; the only limitation can be that of money or the
number of purchasers he will get. And he can do a lot of
mischief by propagating all kinds of pernicious ideas — I am
not thinking in terms of politics. Suppose some noted gangster
started preaching gangsterism, not patently and obviously
but in a disguised way. Well, then the freedom of the press
would mean the preaching of gangsterism or the preaching of
hatred of others, which is common enough in many countries.
It may be that, if you have hatred in your mind, perhaps it
is better to have it out instead of nursing it; but to preach it
from day to day to immature minds, surely, cannot be good.

What exactly is the press? Whatever it may be, the
money involved, the owner and the proprietor of that money
are major factors. Does the freedom of the press ultimately
mean freedom of the rich man to do what he likes with his
money through the press? A poor man or a man with inade-
quate means, whether he is good or bad, won’t have much of
an opportunity to express himself except in a very limited
and small way. He may be good; he may be brilliant but the
persons who gets the opportunity nowadays is the person with

At the Indepmd

n Mrations , 1953

With the Prime Minister of Pakistan and Begum Mohammed Ali at Delhi , August 1953

At the inauguration of the Andhra Stale in Kurnool , October /, 1953

THE MODERN NEWSPAPER

465

means; he can run newspapers, buy them or stop them,
employ people whom he likes and dismiss people whom he
dislikes. So, it may be that the freedom of the press means
not so much freedom of the writer to write what he will but
rather of the owner of a newspaper to see that the writer
writes something that he wants him to write. A great news-
paper, while it is a very powerful organ, is, at the same time,
a very very expensive undertaking financially. Normally
speaking — and I speak with all deference — high standards
and high intelligence are not allied with large quantities of
money. A person with a large amount of money need not
necessarily have high cultural standards or high literary
standards or any high standards at all, though he may have
the knack of making money. Therefore, the freedom of the
press may come to mean the freedom of persons who have a
knack of making money and that, after all, is not such a
noble thing. I think of all these difficulties and wonder how
we can have real freedom of the press — a real expression of
opinion for or against whatever it might be, and no suppres-
sion of any real opinion provided it is not indecent or vulgar
and provided it is not exploited for wrong ends.

Some of you, gentlemen, have protested that certain laws
that our Parliament passed about a year ago were an infringe-
ment of the freedom of the press. I am neither defending
those laws nor objecting to them; I only want to point out
that there are difficulties in the way of any person who tries
to think objectively and tries to consider a question, not in a
vacuum — nothing, indeed, can be considered in a vacuum —
but in relation to life as we have it, in relation to life in India
if you like. Conditions differ and exactly the same principles
may apply but the application of the principle may differ
from country to country. For instance, when there is a war,
there is suddenly all manner of suppression that people put
up with. The freedom of the press goes; the Government in
authority does what it likes under the cloak of security or
whatever it may be and nobody complains, because, for the
moment, the winning of the war becomes the primary objec-
tive. Under other conditions, the same principle is applied
differently in different countries and, in the same country.

486'

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

applied differently at different times. I don’t think that exactly
the same type and extent of freedom can be applied in all
circumstances at all times or in all countries; we have always
to adjust ourselves to a certain set of circumstances. Any
responsible person must think of the totality of those circum-
stances and not of an individual thing here and there. The
person in authority may, in all earnestness and in all honesty
of purpose, begin to think — and often does think — that
what he thinks is right whereas others are Wrong. He may
begin to think that he is indispensable and that, therefore,
he must protect that particular idea or that particular group,
party or individual, because he honestly thinks that his is
the best opinion. It is a dangerous idea and more so when
it is held by honest people. When dishonest people hold it,
it does not matter so much, because you can always discount
the view but an honest man who holds an opinion like that
is a very difficult person to deal with. One has to guard
against that and it is right that persons in authority should
be subjected to criticism, to ceaseless criticism, I hope, to
friendly criticism but criticism as strong as you like.

To some extent, politicians and newspapermen or
journalists have much in common. Both presume to talk
too much, to write too much, to deliver homilies; both,
generally speaking, require no qualifications at all for their
job. I do not mean to say that no politician or newspaperman
has any qualifications. My point is that for any average
profession — medicine, engineering or any other — a person
has got to go through a long course of training. He must
obtain his degrees and diplomas; only then he is allowed
to practise. Not so the politician and the newspaperman. If
he has a certain gift of expression, he gets going; whether or
not there is any content behind that expression is totally
immaterial. In fact, sometimes he gets on simply because
he has the gift or the knack of abusing, just as some people
have the knack of making money. It is amazing; I have
never understood it. Some people also have the knack of
getting hold of unsavoury things in life and making a fuss
about them, thereby not only getting on in their profession
but making money too. Now, unsavoury things should not

THE MODERN NEWSPAPER

467

be covered up but one must keep some kind of balance. One
cannot constantly talk about the drainage system and the
like. It gives one an unbalanced view of life and of traditions.
Some people take delight not only in unsavoury things, but in
things which excite and incite, thus getting more people to
buy their newspapers.

The other day, an editor in Delhi came to me after I had
said something like this at a press conference. He came to
me and said: ‘What you said is perfectly correct, perfectly
right. True, but what am I to do? My boss, my proprietor,
insists on my writing in this way. I do not want to write
that sort of thing but I do not want to be thrown out of my
job. Therefore, I have to write the things to which you object.
I also object to them.’ It certainly is not a very nolle confes-
sion to make but still it is rather an extraordinary thing
when the editor of a paper with a fairl) wide circulation
should be compelled or should say that he is compelled to
write the sort of thing which is creating communal trouble
in Delhi by exaggerating a minor personal incident. That
incident had nothing to do with the public; it could easily
have been dealt with in a variety of ways, either privately or
in public, legally or otherwise. It was, however, not dealt
with that way. On the other hand, people’s passions were
being roused because of it. That editor frankly admitted
that the paper sold more if he wrote like that. ‘My proprietor
wants me to increase the sale of the paper.’ Now, how are
we to deal with that kind of a situation?

The obvious thing is that there should be self-discipline,
not only at the group level or at the journalists’ or newspaper-
men’s level but in your organization and in other organiza-
tions. Where there is no self-discipline, another kind of
discipline has to be imposed sooner or later. No society
will tolerate utter lack of discipline for long because it leads
to chaotic conditions, whether they occur in a large way or
in a small way. Since chaotic conditions cannot be tolerated,
there must be discipline. This discipline may be self-discipline
or imposed discipline or, to some extent, both. You may
define democracy in a hundred ways but surely one of its
definitions is self-discipline of the community. The less the

468

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1959

imposed discipline and the more the self-discipline, the
higher is the development of democracy. Now, apply that
to newspapers. When the newspaper world is in an
undeveloped state in a country, there has to be more of
imposed discipline but it does not fit in with the democratic
way of life and should not be unduly encouraged. Clearly,
there cannot be a vacuum. Unless self-discipline develops
or standards grow, some kind of standards has to be imposed.

The other day there was a very gross case of libel. It was
as bad as it could be. It concerned a member of our Foreign
Service and, what is worse, his wife was referred to in one of
the newspapers in the most indecent terms. The whole
thing was hundred per cent false. The matter went to a law
court in the ordinary way but the jury of journalists said it
was not serious enough to punish the writer, although it was
a most serious case in all conscience. Now, it did not redound
to the credit of the jury that they should deal with a member
of their own profession in that way, when the court had
found him guilty and the whole thing a fantastic fabrication,
doing injustice to a member of our Foreign Service and,
worse still, to his wife. I do not want a person to be pilloried
and sent to prison unless he commits an offence against
criminal law. Unless you have the strongest possible public
opinion amongst yourselves, unless you add some sanction to
that, the code of ethics you are laying down will nof go very
far. Then matters will really be worse than they were previ-
ously, because you will have tried your best and failed. I
should like you to consider these matters from this point of
view.

Now, there is another aspect that I would like to put
before you. All of you, newspaper editors and others, in fact,
all of us, are city folk. No doubt towns and cities play a very
important part everywhere; they also do in India but far
less attention is paid here to the vast problems of our country-
side. The day before yesterday, I was in the Bhil area, the
Adivasi area, and thousands of Bhils came to see me.
They interested me. I feel a little more at home among them
than I do in the city of Delhi which, in spite of its many
good points, occasionally makes me uncomfortable. India

THE MODERN NEWSPAPER

469

contains a tremendous variety of people; indeed, besides the
Bhils and other Adivasis, there are also millions of our peasant
folk in other areas. I find that the newspapers deal only with
very limited topics in a very limited way. Their horizon
is narrow. Somebody said that the adventures of innocence
are not worth recording. That is true; and so the wrong
things have to be blazoned out, giving people the impression
that there is much more of the wrong things than there really
is. That, unfortunately, is one of the bad things that the
newspapers have brought us. They blazon out to the world
the wrong things that happen, simply because these things
are exciting and, therefore, interesting. I suppose there is no
remedy for that except to try and lay stress on the construc-
tive aspect of other problems. Take international politics,
for instance. The newspapers are full of conflicts, declarations
or denunciations against persons or countries. Occasionally,
denunciation may be good; I do not wish to rule it out.
But when life is a string of denunciations, it becomes a little
unbalanced and overdone. Indeed, it is as difficult to get at
the truth as it is to hear anything if everybody is shrieking
at the top of his voice. Nowadays, there is far too much of
shrieking and one cannot understand what is being said.
Newspapers naturally give more publicity to denunciations
and the like than to the normal activities of vast numbers of
human beings. Thus, we get an unbalanced view of the
world. I do not know how we can balance it. I am posing to
you some difficulties and problems that trouble me from time
to time, because, as I told you, I get the impression at times
that I am getting old and the sign of old age is that I begin
to philosophize and ponder over problems which should not
be my concern at all. I suppose, all of you, whether old or
young, sometimes have these quiet, lucid moments. Normally
a politician or a newspaperman has few lucid moments,
because he functions from day to day, hour to hour and
minute to minute. He does not have the time to think. That
is the fault of our present-day civilization. Not only news-
papermen and politicians but others, too, are gradually
being drawn into the whirlpool of incessant activity without
thinking. What this will lead to, I do not quite know. I

11— 11 DPD/63

470 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

suppose, it is an inevitable development of technological
improvements and advancement. This rushes along at a
headlong pace, far faster than the average human mind
can, with the result that we get entangled in the strings of
thought. It is said of Erasmus that his entire library consisted
of fifty books and he was supposed to have been one of the
wisest men of his age. Nowadays, I do not know how many
books we read, how many newspapers, periodicals and
magazines and other things we wade through and forget
soon after reading them. If we read books, we read them
hurriedly because we have got into the habit of reading
newspapers hurriedly. Obviously, nobody can sit down and
read newspapers as one reads a book. Therefore, we apply
the newspaper habit of reading to books with the result that
our minds sometimes function with brilliance but hardly
ever with depth. We may be clever. We may say an amusing
or a witty thing and be pleased with ourselves but there is
little depth of thought behind it. I do not know why I am
telling you all this. It appears to me to be an inevitable
development of the pace at which the world lives today.
To put it differently the machine grows. I am not against the
machine at all; I admire the machine very greatly. The
machine grows and grows and grows till it becomes almost
human; it begins to think — to give answers to questions.
The machine becomes human and the human being appears
to become more and more a machine, which is sad, because
after all the machine has emerged from the human mind.
Whether it is because of political, authoritarian or economic
conditions or because of hunger, degradation or technological
improvements — whatever the reason may be — if the human
mind loses its creative faculty and becomes more and more
of a machine, then surely that is a tragedy for humanity in
spite of the tremendous growth of civilization in other ways,
because that way the springs of culture will gradually dry
up. It may revive itself; civilization may have some kind of
reincarnation. Anything like that may happen. But the
present stage of tremendous transition, with our hurried pace
of living and hurried decisions, with no leisure, no opportu-
nity or time for thinking, cannot by itself be a satisfactory

THE MODERN NEWSPAPER

471

phase. It may be because of this that we do not think quite
sq much and are faced with difficulties all the time. If we
cannot even think for ourselves, how are we to know what
others are thinking? Surely, in order to understand a
problem, it is necessary to try to know whai others are think-
ing. Difficult as it is, it becomes even more so when we
hardly know how our own mind is working. So, our thinking
becomes a series of reactions and urges to stimuli. That is
not thinking. Of course, in a large measure our thoughts
are determined by circumstances. We do not have much
control over them. Even so, I suppose there must be some
freedom, otherwise our thoughts would merely be mechanical
reactions to immediate events and to things said or done or
written. That would be unfoitunate enough in the individual
or the group; but when the fate of a country or of the world
depends upon these rapid reactions, then one becomes
apprehensive about the future.

I have an infinite faith in humanity and in its capacity to
survive every disaster. Anyhow, that is a question of faith
and it is a good thing to have faith. Leaving faith aside for a
moment, it is a little dangerous for the world’s destiny to be
governed merely by sudden and immediate reactions to events.

Coming back to newspapers, how far do they represent
such reactions? They function in a difficult atmosphere;
they have to say something quickly and they have not
much time to think. If a newspaper is hostile to a person
and has to give a reaction to what he says, it will give a
reaction to him, not to what he says; that is what normally
happens. If you dislike a country you give your reaction
against that country, not against what has been said by that
country, by that individual or by that group. If the news-
papers do that, then, of course, they are not functioning
satisfactorily. They are not functioning maturely or wisely.
Of course, it is hardly appropriate to use the word wise in
connection w'ith newspapers but there is no reason why
newspapers should not have some amount of leisured think-
ing and wisdom — if not always — in the leading articles.
These are some odd thoughts that I have placed before you
for your consideration as they came to my mind.

CONCERNING THE CONSTITUTION

COMPENSATION FOR COMPULSORY ACQUISITION
OF PROPERTY

T his House has discussed many articles of the Constitution
at considerable length. I doubt if there are many other
articles which have given rise to so much discussion and debate
as the present one I have moved. In this, many eminent
lawyers have taken part, in private and other discussions;
and, naturally, they have thrown a great deal of light on it —
so much light, indeed, that its conflicting beams have often
produced a certain measure of darkness. But the questions
before us are really simple. It is true that there are two
approaches to some questions, one being the individual right
to property and the other the community’s interest in or the
community’s right to that property. There is no necessary
conflict between the two: sometimes, of course, they may
overlap. The amendment I have moved is intended
to remove or avoid that conflict and also to take into
consideration fully both these rights — the right of the indivi-
dual and the right of the community.

First of all, let us be quite clear that there is no question
of expropriation without compensation, so far as this Consti-
tution is concerned. If property is required for public use, it
is a well-established law that it should be acquired by the
State by compulsion, if necessary with compensation paid;
and the law has laid down methods of determining that
compensation. Now, normally speaking, in regard to such
acquisition — it might be called petty acquisition or acquisi-
tion of small properties or even relatively large ones, if you
like, for the improvement of a town or other similar purposes
— the law has been clearly laid down. But today the commu-
nity has to deal more and more with large schemes of social

Speech while moving an amendment ro Article 24 of the Draft Constitution
in the Constituent Assembly. New Delhi, September 10, 1949

COMPENSATION FOR COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY 47S

reform, social engineering, etc., which can hardly be
considered from the point of view of individual acquisition of
a small piece of land or a small structure. Apart from every
other difficulty, the question of time presents the main
difficulty. Here is a piece of legislation that the community
through its chosen representatives, considers essential for the
progress and the safety of the State; it affects millions of
people. Obviously, you cannot leave this piece of legislation
to be the subject of long, wide-spread and continuous
litigation in the courts of law. The future of millions of
people may be affected; the whole structure of the State may
be shaken to its foundations. So, we must keep these things in
view. If the State wants to take the property, we have to see
that fair and equitable compensation is given. But when we
consider the equity of it, we have always to remember that
equity does not apply only to the individual but also to the
community. No individual can ultimately override the rights
of the community at large. No community should injure and
invade the rights of the individual, unless it be for the most
urgent and important of reasons. How is all this going to be
balanced? You may balance it, to some extent, by legal
means but ultimately the balancing authority can only be
the Sovereign Legislature of the country, which can keep
before it the various factors — the public, political and other
factors — that come into the picture. This Article, if you will
only read it, leads you, by a chain of thought, to these various
factors and, I think, deals with them in an equitable manner.
It is true that some hon. Members may criticize this Article,
perhaps because there is overlapping or lack of clarity in
word or phrase here and there. That, to some extent, is
inevitable when you try to bring together a large number of
ideas, approaches and factors in one or more phrases.

The draft Article, which I have the honour to propose, is
the result of a great deal of consultation and, in fact, of an
attempt to bring about a compromise on the various
approaches to this question. I feel that this attempt has, in
a very large measure, succeeded. Perhaps, it does not meet
the wishes of every individual who may like to emphasise
one or the other part of it. But, I think, it is a just compromise

474

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

and it does justice and equity not only to the individual but
also to the community.

The first clause in this Article lays down the basic prin-
ciple that no person shall be deprived of his property save by
the authority of law. The next clause says that the law should
provide for compensation for the property acquired and
should either fix the amount of the compensation or specify
the principles according to which or the manner in which
the compensation is to be determined. Clearly, it is a matter
for the law or for Parliament. There is no reference to any
judiciary. Much thought has been given to it and there has
been much debate as to where the judiciary should come in.
Eminent lawyers have told us that according to the proper
interpretation of this clause, normally the judiciary should
not and does not come in at all. Parliament fixes either the
compensation itself or the principles governing the compensa-
tion and they should not be challenged except for one reason,
namely, where it is thought that there has been a gross abuse
of the law, where, in fact, there has been a fraud on the
Constitution. Naturally, the judiciary comes in to see if there
has been a fraud on the Constitution or not. But one, of
course, presumes that any Parliament representing the entire
community of the nation will certainly not commit a fraud
on its own Constitution and will be deeply concerned
that justice should be done to the individual and the
community.

In regard to the other clauses, I need say very little except
that clause ( 4 ) relates to Bills now pending before the
Legislature of one of the States. The House is aware that
there are such Bills pending. In order to avoid any doubt
with regard to those measures it says that, as soon as the
President has given his assent to that law, no question should
be raised in a court of law in regard to the provisions of that
enactment. This is, if you like, a kind of check so that nothing
is done in a hurry by a Legislature. In such a case, the
President will, no doubt, suggest such changes as he may
consider fit and proper for consideration by Parliament.

Finally, there are certain other saving clauses about
which I need not say much. Clause (6) again refers to any law

COMPENSATION FOR COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY 475

which has been passed within the last two years or so before
the Constitution came into force. It says that, if the President
certifies it, no other obstruction should be raised. Reading
this Article, it seems surprising to me that we should have
had a debate on it. This debate was, perhaps, due not so
much to this Article as to other differences of opinion on the
part of some Members of this House and, I believe, of many
outside.

We are passing through a tremendous age of transition.
That, of course, is a platitude. Nevertheless, platitudes
have sometimes to be repeated and remembered, lest in
forgetting them we should land ourselves in difficulties.
When a transition takes place, the social system, including
the system of law, has to undergo changes. Conceptions,
which had seemed basic to us, must thus undergo changes.
And I draw the attention of the House to the very conception
of property, which may appear to us to be unchanging but
which has, in fact, been changing throughout the ages. It
has changed very greatly and, even today, is undergoing a
very rapid change. There was a period when even human
beings were regarded as property. The king owned every-
thing — the land, the cattle, the human beings. Property
used to be measured in terms of cows and bullocks in the
old days. Subsequently, property in land became more
important. Gradually, the property in human beings ceased
to exist. If you go back to the period of the great debates on
slavery, you will find how the same arguments were advanced
with regard to human beings as are sometimes advanced now
with regard to the other forms of property. Well, slavery
ceased to exist. Gradually, the idea of property underwent
changes, not so much through legislation as through the
development of human society. Today, as it was yesterday,
land is likely to be a very important kind of property. One
cannot overlook this fact. Nevertheless, today there are other
kinds of property which are very important in industrially
developed countries. Utimately, we have reached a stage
when property consists chiefly of a bundle of papers in the
millionaire’s hands and these papers represent millions in
securities, promissory notes and so on. That is the conception

476

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

of property today; that is the current conception of the
millionaire. In other words, property has become more and
more a question of credit. It becomes more and more
immaterial, more and more of a shadow. A man with credit
is thus the real owner of property and can raise loans and
can do wonders, with that credit. But a man with no credit
can do nothing at all. I am merely mentioning this to the
House to show how the idea of property has been a changing
one, where society has been changing rapidly owing to various
revolutions, industrial and other.

There is another change that has taken place. Property
remains, of course, property but its ownership is gradually
beginning to be more and more general. The individual,
instead of being the exclusive owner of a small property,
is having more and more share in large properties in common
with o tliers who are his co-sharers. Co-operative undertakings
and, to some extent, the joint-stock system thus came into
being. So also, in a sense, spread the idea of an individual
becoming a part owner or a member of a group of owners
of large properties which no single individual could hold,
except very rarely. In recent years, the tendency has been
for the monopoly of wealth and property to pass into a limited
number of hands. This does not apply to India so much,
because we have not developed much in that direction; but
where countries have grown fast industrially, there has arisen
monopoly of capital, with the result that the old idea of
property and free enterprise is not easily applicable to
present-day conditions, because, in the ultimate analysis,
the few persons who have the monopoly of capital really
dominate the scene. By their method of business and by
virtue of the fact that they have large sums of money at their
command, they can, for instance, squeeze out the little
shopkeeper. Without giving the slightest compensation,
they can crush him out of existence altogether. The small
man is crushed out of existence by the modern tendency
to have money-power concentrated in a few hands. Thus
the ojd conception of property in individual ownership
suffers not only from social developments as we see them
taking place and from new conceptions of co-operative

COMPENSATION FOR COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY 477

ownership of property but also from developments on old
lines which enable a rich man with capital to buy out the
man of small means.

How are you going to protect the individual? I began
by saying that there are two approaches — the individual
approach and the approach in terms of the community.
Few individuals, strong enough to protect themselves, are,
indeed, left and they are becoming fewer and fewer. In such
a state of affairs, the State has to protect the individual’s right
to property. The individual may possess property but it may
mean nothing to him, because some kind of monopoly
steps in and deprives him of the enjoyment of his property.
The subject, therefore, is not a simple one. You say you
are protecting the individual's rights; but he may lose that
right completely through the various forces at work today,
both in a capitalist and in a socialist direction.

Well, this is obviously a large question and one can
consider its various aspects at length. I wish to place before
the House just a hint of the broad issues, because I am a
little afraid that the House may be moved by legal arguments
of extreme subtlety and cleverness, ignoring the human
aspect and other aspects of the problem.

The House has also to keep in mind the transitional and
the revolutionary aspects of the problem, because when you
think of the land question in India today, you are really
thinking of something dynamic, moving and changing,
something revolutionary. It may well change the face of
India either way; whether you deal or do not deal with the
problem, it is not something which is entirely within the
control of law and Parliament. That is to say, if law and
Parliament do not fit themselves into the changing picture,
they will be unable wholly to control the situation.

We must not, therefore, consider these problems in the
narrow, legalistic and juristic sense. There are some hon.
Members here who are owners of land, owners of zamindaries.
Naturally, they feel that their interests might be affected by
the land legislation. But I think that the way the land
legislation is being dealt with today — and I am acquainted
with the land legislation in the United Provinces a little more

478

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

intimately than elsewhere — may appear to hon. Members
to be not completely right so far they are concerned; but,
even from the point of view of their interests, it is a better
and a juster way than any other way that will come later.
The latter way may not be one of legislation. The land
question may be settled in a different manner altogether.
If you look at the situation all the world over and especially
in Asia, you will inevitably come to the conclusion that
nothing is more important and vital than a gradual abolition
of the big estates. The policy of the abolition of big estates is
not a new policy but one that was laid down by the National
Congress years ago. So far as we are concerned, we, who
are connected with the Congress, shall, naturally, give effect
to that pledge completely — one hundred per cent — and no
legal subtlety, no change, is going to come in our way. That
is quite clear. We will honour our pledges. Within limits, no
judge and no supreme court will be allowed to constitute
themselves into a third chamber. No supreme court and no
judiciary will sit in judgment over the sovereign will of
Parliament which represents the will of the entire community.
If we go wrong here and there, they can point it out; but, in
the ultimate analysis, where the future of the community
is concerned, no judiciary must, come in the way. Ultimately,
the whole Constitution is a creature of Parliament. But we
must respect the judiciary, the Supreme Court and the High
Courts in the land.

As wise people, the duty of the judges is to see that in a
moment of passion, in a moment of excitement, the represen-
tatives of the people do not go wrong; there is, of course, the
possibility that they might. In the detached atmosphere of
the courts, they should see to it that nothing is done that is
against the Constitution, that may be against the good of the
country, that may be against the community in the larger
sense of the term. Therefore, if such a thing were to occur,
they should draw our attention to that fact but it is obvious
that no court, no system of judiciary should be allowed to
function in the nature of a third house, as a kind of Third
House of Correction. You have decided, the House has
decided, rather most of the Provincial Governments have

THE STATIC ELEMENT

479

decided, to have a Second Chamber. Why has it been so
decided? The Second Chamber also is mostly an elected
Chamber. Presumably, they have so decided, because we
want some check somewhere on any hasty decision of the
First Chamber, which that Chamber itself may later regret
and may wish to go back on. So, from that point of view, it is
desirable to have people whose duty is, not in any small
matters but with regard to the basic principles that you lay
down, to see that you do not go wrong, as sometimes the
legislature may go wrong; but ultimately the fact remains
that the legislature must be supreme and must not be
interfered with by the courts of law in measures of social
reform. If it is interfered with, you will have strange
procedures adopted. Of course, one of them is to change the
Constitution. The other is what we have seen in great
countries across the seas where the executive, which is respon-
sible for the appointment of the judiciary, begins to appoint
judges of its own liking to get decisions in its own favour; but
that is not a very desirable method. I submit, therefore, that
the approach made in this Resolution protects both the
individual and the community. It gives the final authority
to Parliament, subject only to the scrutiny of the superior
courts in case of grave error, in case of contravention of the
Constitution or the like, not otherwise. And finally, in regard
to certain pending measure or measures that have been
passed, it makes it clear beyond any doubt that there should
be no interference.

THE STATIC ELEMENT

T his bill is not a very complicated one; nor is it a big one.

Nevertheless, I need hardly point out that it is of great
intrinsic importance. Anything dealing with the Constitution
or with changes in it is of importance. Anything dealing with

Speech in Parliament while moving that the Bill to amend the Constitution
of India be referred to a Select Committee, New Delhi, May 16, 1951

480

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

fundamental rights incorporated in the Constitution is of
even greater importance. Therefore, the Government
introduces this Bill in no spirit of light-heartedness or in
haste but after the most careful thought and scrutiny.

I might inform the House that we have been thinking
about this matter for several months. We have been consult-
ing people, the State Governments, the Ministers of the
State Governments and, when the occasion offered itself, a
number of Members of this House. We have referred this
Bill to various committees and the like and taken such advice
from competent legal quarters as we could obtain. We have
brought it forward now in the best form that we could give it,
because we thought that the amendments mentioned in
this Bill are not only necessary but desirable and because we
thought that if these changes are not made, not only would
great difficulties arise as they have arisen in the past few
months but, perhaps, some of the very purposes of the Consti-
tution stood in danger of being defeated or delayed. In a
sense, the matter has been mentioned rather vaguely and has
been before the public for some time. But the precise form,
in which it appears in this Bill, was given to it only a few
days ago when I presented it to the House.

There has been a great variety of criticism. There has
been criticism, not only in our own country as there should be
but also in some foreign countries, where some of our friends
or those who were our friends have got into the habit of
criticizing whatever we do. If we do something to seek peace,
our action is criticized. If we do something else, they say
that we are not peaceful. And so, as I said, there has been a
good deal of criticism and we welcome it, because in a matter
of this kind, the greater the scrutiny, the better it is. May I
say that it is with no desire to hurry this Bill that I have
mentioned an early date for the report of the Select
Committee? I do not myself see how a prolongation of the
date for a relatively simple Bill, however important, enables
us to give greater thought to it. With regard to the three
or four articles, such thought and experience as we have can
surely be brought to bear on the question within a few days;
and even if we were to agree to extend the period from a few

THE STATIC ELEMENT

481

days to a few weeks, such an extension is not going to increase
the amount of concentrated attention or thought that we
might give it.

One of the things that has been criticized is that this
House, since it was elected on a narrow franchise, is not really
representative of the country and of the organized will of the
community. Therefore, it is not competent to deal with such
amendments. I seem to remember that the very people who
have so criticized us also questioned the right of the House
which preceded this to represent the people. The same people
again criticized the Constituent Assembly, which was elected
on a narrow franchise, for daring to draft the Constitution
of India. That Constituent Assembly now belongs to history
and is no more; but we who sit here— or nearly all of us —
still continue that tradition, that link. In fact, it is we, after
all, who were the Constituent Assembly and who drafted this
Constitution. Then, we were not supposed to be competent
enough to draft the Constitution. But now the work we
did has been found so perfect that we are no longer competent
to touch it! That is rather a curious argument. We are here,
because after the experience of nearly a year and a half we
have naturally learned much. We have found, if I may say
so, some errors of drafting and, possibly, of interpretation.
That is but natural. And the House will also remember that
when this matter of the Constitution was being considered
in the Constituent Assembly, a clause or an article was pro-
posed that, within the space of five years, any changes made
in the Constitution should be relatively easy, that an easy
procedure and not the normal procedure laid down should
be followed. Why? Because it was thought — and, if I may
say so, rightly thought — that after a little while many little
things would come to our notice which had not come up
in the course of the debate and which we could rectify with
relative ease, so that after this preliminary experience we
could, more or less, finalize the Constitution. We thought
that in this way there would be no necessity for extensive
amendments. Unfortunately, that particular clause was
dropped. Nevertheless, the House can proceed, in the manner
provided by the Constitution, to amend it if it so chooses.

482 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

There is no doubt that this House has that authority. At
the moment, I am talking, not of the legal or constitutional
authority but of moral authority, because, roughly speaking,
it is this House that made the Constitution. We are the
inheritors or the fathers of the Constitution. We really
hammered it out and shaped it after years of close debate.
Now, we come to this House for amendments because it has
been pointed out to us by judicial interpretations that some
lacunae exist. We have noticed also that difficulties arise
because there are various interpretations. Let me say right
at the outset that, so far as the Constitution is concerned,
it is the right and privilege of the highest courts of the land to
interpret it as they will; and it is not for us as individuals or
even as a government to challenge that right. The judiciary
must necessarily stand above, shall 1 say, political conflicts
or political interpretations. They have to interpret the
Constitution in the light of the law and with such light as they
can throw on it. We respect their interpretations and we
must carry out their decisions. But having accepted an
interpretation, it is the business of Parliament to see that the
purpose we aimed at is being fulfilled; if it is not fulfilled,
then the will of the community is not being effective. And if,
ultimately, the will of the community is not effective,
then serious difficulties might arise at any time, more so at a
time like this when powerful and dynamic forces are at work,
not merely in India, not merely in Asia but all over the world,
when nothing can be thought of as being static or unchanging.
Therefore, while we fully respect what the courts of the land
have laid down and obey their decisions, nevertheless, it
should be our duty to see whether the Constitution so inter-
preted was rightly framed and whether it was desirable to
change it here and there so as to give effect to what, in our
opinion, was really intended or should have been intended.
Therefore, I come before this House, not to challenge any
judicial interpretation but to take the assistance of this
House in clearing up doubts and in removing certain
anomalies which have hampered our progress in the sphere
of social reform and so on.

This House knows very well that there are many kinds of

THE STATIC ELEMENT

48S

constitutions in the world. There is, for instance, the kind of
constitution that is not written down, such as the Constitution
of the United Kingdom. There Parliament is absolutely
supreme and can do and say what it likes and what it says is
the law of the land, which no court can challenge, whatever
the latter’s interpretation of the law may be. Then, there is
the written constitution, like the Constitution of that great
country, the United States of America. In America, the
Constitution, to some extent, limits the authority of .the
Legislature, so far as certain fundamental rights or other
provisions are concerned. Now, in the United States of
America, by a long course of judicial decisions, healthy
conventions have arisen and the power of the Legislature has
been widened somewhat. Because of the interpretations by
high judicial authority and, perhaps because of these conven-
tions, the extreme rigidity of the written word has, in the
course of generations, become less so. I have no doubt that
if we live through a static period, such conventions will
gradually arise here, too, thus affording a certain flexibility
to the written word. I am sure that our courts will also help
in lessening that rigidity. But, unfortunately, we did not
have much time. It is barely a year ago that we started
functioning under this Constitution. To begin with, there-
fore, it is only the written word, in all its rigid aspects, that
apparently counts and not the many inner meanings that
we may seek to give it.

We are deprived of the benefit of the slow process of
judicial interpretation and development of conventions which
the other countries with written constitutions, such as the
United States of America, have gone through. We live in
these rapidly changing times and we cannot wait. We have
to give a slightly different shape to the written word. In
effect, we are doing what judicial interpretation might have
done and probably would have done in the normal course
and we have come up before the House for that purpose.

Now, a great deal has been said about the desire of this
Government to put a curb or restraint on the freedom of the
citizens or the press or of groups. First of all, may I remind
the House that, perhaps, this Bill only makes it clear as to

484

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-195S

what the authority of Parliament is? We are not putting down
any kind of curb or restraint. We are removing certain doubts
so as to enable Parliament to function if and when it so
chooses. Except for the clarification as to the extent of the
authority of Parliament, nothing will happen when this
Bill is passed. May I also point out to this House that we
in the Government and in the House have not a very long life?
This session is coming to a close and after this there is likely
to be a brief session again before the general elections take
place in this country. The present Parliament will give place
to another — a larger one, perhaps a different one. This
Government may give place to another and, whatever
changes we may make in the Constitution today, it is highly
unlikely that this Government or this Parliament will take
advantage of them by passing laws to that effect, unless
some very severe crisis, national or international, arises
meanwhile. In effect, therefore, this Government is not
trying to seek power to consolidate itself. I do certainly
repudiate the suggestion which has been made that any of
these amendments are meant to be utilized for political or
party purposes. Nothing could be farther from our thoughts
and, indeed, from the practical point of view, the House will
observe that this can hardly be done. We do wish that when
we walk away from the present scene, we may leave some-
thing for the succeeding Parliament and for the younger
generation that will follow, something that they can wield
and handle with ease for the advancement of India and not
something which will always come in their way and deflect
them from the purpose they have in view. It is from this point
of view that we have put forward this Bill.

Now, the House is seized of this Bill and, no doubt, the
Members have noticed the various proposals made therein.
A number of amendments might be called rather secondary
in importance because they do not concern any vital matters
of principle. I shall point them out to the House a little later.
They are not of great importance; but they have come up
before us because of certain difficulties which we have
experienced. For instance, if I may mention one particular
difficulty, one of the articles — for the moment I forget the

THE STATIC ELEMENT

485

number — lays down that this House should meet twice a
year and the President should address it. A possible inter-
pretation of that Article can be that this House has not met
at all this year. It is an extraordinary position considering
that this time the House has laboured more than probably
it has ever done at any time in the previous history of this
or the preceding Legislature in this country. We have been
sitting practically since October with an interval for Xmas
and we are likely to carry on longer. And yet, it may be
held by some acute interpreters that we have not met at all
this year according to the strict terms of the Constitution, for
we started meeting in October and we have not met again;
nor has Parliament been prorogued or addressed by the
President this year. Put it in the extreme way and suppose
that this House met for the full year and worked for twelve
months without a break except short ones. It may then be
said under the strict letter of the law that it has not met at
all this year. Of course, that Article was meant not to come
in the way of our work but to come in the way of our leisure.
It was, indeed, intended to mean that the House must meet
at least twice a year and that there should not be more than
six months’ interval between the meetings. It did not intend
any government of the day simply to sit tight without letting
the House meet. On the contrary, the Article makes it
incumbent upon the Government to see that the House
meets at least twice a year and without too long an interval.
Three or four amendments deal with this. That is to say,
two of them deal with Parliament and two deal with the
State Assemblies because the same rule affects them also.
There are one or two other matters which are rather of a
minor character. I might as well refer to them before I go on
to the more important one.

Article 85 is the article to which I have referred in connec-
tion with the sessions of Parliament, its prorogation and
dissolution. Article 87 is consequential to the change. So also
are Articles 174 and 176 which apply to the State Assemblies
in the same way in regard to Governors summoning them
twice a year. Then, Articles 341 and 342 relate to the noti-
fication of Scheduled Tribes and Castes by the President.

3J— U DPD/6S

486

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

Here, it is really a verbal change to make the position clear
because some States have no Rajpramukhs.

Article 372 relates to the adaptation of laws where it is
sought to increase the period from two to three years. Article
376. — the last one — enables the Government to appoint a
Chief Justice even though he might not be a citizen of India.
These are relatively minor points. The really important
provisions which I am putting before the House relate to
Article 19 and Article 31. There is also Article 15 with which
I will deal first. In Article 1 5, it is sought to add certain words.
Perhaps, it might appear that these words are redundant.
Nevertheless, it has been considered desirable to add them
and I am quite sure that a slight addition is desirable from
the point of view of clarity.

The real difficulty which has come up before us is this.
The Constitution lays down certain Directive Principles of
State Policy. We agreed to them after a long discussion and
they point out the way we must travel. The Constitution also
lays down certain Fundamental Rights. Both are important.
The Directive Principles of State Policy represent a dynamic
move towards a certain objective. The Fundamental Rights
represent something static; their object is to preserve certain
rights which already exist. Both again are right. But some-
times it might so happen that the dynamic movement and the
static concept do not quite fit in with each other.

A dynamic movement towards a certain objective
necessarily means certain changes': that is the essence of
movement. Now, it may be that, in the process of movement,
certain existing relationships are altered, varied or affected.
In fact, it is meant to affect those settled relationships and
yet if you come back to the Fundamental Rights they are
meant to preserve, though not always directly, certain settled
relationships. There is a certain conflict between the two
approaches but I am sure it is not an inherent one. However,
there is some difficulty and, naturally, when the courts of the
land have to consider these matters, they have to lay stress
more on the Fundamental Rights than on the Directive
Principles of the State Policy. The result is that the whole
purpose behind the Constitution, which was meant to be a

THE STATIC ELEMENT

487

dynamic constitution, leading to a certain goal step by step,
is hampered and hindered by the static element which has
been emphasized a little more than the dynamic element;
and we have to find a way out of the difficulty.

The amendment which I seek to move is, to be quite
frank with the House, not a solution of the basic problem
which will come up before the House in various shapes and
forms from time to time. But it does lay stress on one small
aspect of it.

May I also point out and try to remove a possible mis-
conception that might be in the minds of some hon. Members?
They might think that this is, perhaps, a devious method of
bringing in the communal element in the consideration of
this problem. I want to make it perfectly clear that, so far
as the Government is concerned, it does not wish to have
any truck with communalism in any form. All that it wants
to do is to help the backward classes, which are specially
mentioned in the Constitution, to grow. If we think of them
in terms of a community, we bring in communalism. But
if we deal with the backward classes as such, irrespective of
what religion or group they belong to, then it is our duty
to help them to advance, educationally, socially and
economically. Naturally, that advance is not meant to be at
the expense of others.

The House may remember Article 29(2) which says that
no one by reason of his religion, etc., should be kept out of an
educational institution. That is a fundamental thing by
which this Constitution stands and we must stand by it.
There is no question of evading that. What I submit is that
while we respect that Article we have also to respect the
fundamental directive of this Constitution and the funda-
mental aims of our policy, namely, that we must encourage
and help those who are backward to rise and give them
proper training and proper opportunities for social and
economic advance.

The essential difficulty lies in the fact that the whole con-
ception of fundamental rights is for the protection of
individual liberty and freedom. That is a basic conception
and to know where it was derived from you have to go back

488

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1955

to European history in the latter days of the 18th century,
roughly speaking, from the days of the French Revolution
on to the 19th century. That might be said to be the dominat-
ing idea of the 19th century and it has continued to be a
matter of fundamental importance. Nevertheless, as the 19th
century marched into the 20th and as the 20th century wore
on, other additional ideas came into the field which are
represented by our Directive Principles of State Policy. In
the process of protecting individual liberty, if you also protect
individual or group inequality, then you come into con-
flict with that directive principle. If, therefore, an appeal to
individual liberty and freedom is construed as an appeal
for the continuation of the existing inequality, then you come
up against difficulties. You become static and unprogressive
and cannot change; you cannot realize the ideal of an egali-
tarian society which, I hope, most of us want.

Now, to return to this particular amendment, if its
wording can be varied and improved, I should welcome it.
I do not stick to any particular wording. In the Select
Committee or outside different words may be suggested,
which would, perhaps, make the meaning I have sought to
put before the House clearer and I would certainly welcome
the change.

Then, we come to the two main Articles which have to be
dealt with in this Bill. Article 19 deals with clause (2) of the
Fundamental Rights. It has been said that this Government
seeks to curb and restrict the freedom of the press. Hon.
Members are fully aware of the state of affairs today. I don’t
think there is any country in the world at the present moment
where there is so much freedom — if I may use the word
for the moment — in regard to the press as in India. I have
frequently given expression to my appreciation of the way
responsible journals in this country are conducted. I should
like to say so again. But I have also drawn attention to the
way the less responsible news-sheets are conducted and it
has become a matter of the deepest distress to me to see some
of these news-sheets coming out from day to day, full of
vulgarity, indecency and falsehood. This does not injure me
or this House much but it poisons the minds of the younger

THE STATIC ELEMENT

489

generation, degrading their mental integrity and moral
standards. For me, it is not a political but a moral problem.
How are we to save our younger generation from this progres-
sive degradation and poisoning of the mind and spirit?
From the way untruth is bandied about and falsehood spread,
it has become quite impossible to distinguish what is true
from what is false. Imagine our younger generation in the
schools and colleges reading these news-sheets, imagine our
soldiers and our sailors and our airmen reading them from
day to day! What kind of impression do you think they will
make on their minds?

Yes, we can be quite sure that we have the completest
freedom of the press. But freedom like everything else, indeed,
more than everything else, carries certain responsibilities and
obligations and a certain discipline with it. If a sense of
responsibility, obligation and discipline is lacking, then it is
not freedom but the absence of freedom, whether it is in
individual who indulges in it or a group 01 a newspaper.

For my part, as I grow in years, I become more and
more convinced that one cannot deal with any major
problem, whether it is international or national, by simply
relying on coercive piocesses. 1 have come to realize this
more and more. I know, of course, that, essentially, the duty
or at any rate a part of the duty of a government is to coerce
the evil-doer according to the laws of the land. Till we are
able to rise to higher levels, a government will always have
that duty. I know that it is the duty of governments to protect
the freedom of the country from external invasion, by keep-
ing armies and navies and the like. And so, in spite of my
deep and almost instinctive belief that this violence does
not solve any problem, I have to rely on coercive processes
and on the Army and the Navy. I have to keep them in the
most effective and efficient trim. Therefore, it is not with any
idea of trying to improve the morals of the country by
coercive processes that I approach this question. I do not
believe that morality is improved by coercive processes,
whether in the individual or in the group. Nevertheless,
when there is a total lack of those restraints which make up
a civilization and which lie behind any culture, whether it is

490

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

of the East or the West, when there is no sense of responsibility
and obligation, we have to do something to combat the
corroding influence and stop the disintegrating processes
that undermine society.

Now, I am in a difficulty. This particular amendment is
not, let me remind the House, a law curbing or restraining
anybody. All these amendments are enabling measures
intended merely to define the powers of Parliament which
might be challenged and have been challenged with regard
to some matters. Things remain, so far as the law is con-
cerned, exactly as they were, as long as this Parliament or a
future Parliament does not alter them after due thought.
I have never heard of any one saying that in the United
Kingdom there is no freedom of the press or freedom of
anything because Parliament is all-powerful. I have never
heard that said. It is only here that we seem not to rely on
.ourselves, not to have faith in ourselves, in our Parliament
or our Assemblies but on some external authority, just as
some of us relied on the British in the old days. After all, the
responsibility for the governance of India, for the advance-
ment of India, lies on this and future Parliaments and if
this Parliament or future Parliaments of India do not come
up to our expectations, then it will bode India no good.
You rely on this Parliament for the biggest things and yet
you come and tell us, ‘Don’t trust this Parliament because
it may do something wrong, it may do something against
the Constitution.’ I would beg the House to remember that
this Bill does not bring in any offence, any curb, any restraint.
I repeat that it is only an enabling measure defining the
power of Parliament to deal with certain matters.

Now, as I have said, I have a difficulty in dealing with
the press. The press is one of the vital organs of modern life,
especially in a democracy. The press has tremendous powers
and tremendous responsibilities. The press must be respected
and it must also have co-operation. In a somewhat varied
career, I have sometimes considered myself a bit of a journalist
too. So, I approach this question not as an outsider but, to
some extent, as one of the profession, with full sympathy
for the difficulties that journalists and newspapermen

THE STATIC ELEMENT

491

and editors have to face. But then, what is the press?
Is it represented by the great organs of national opinion or
by the two-page news-sheets that come out overnight from
time to time, without any regularity, full of abuse and some-
times even used for the purpose of blackmail? What
standard do I have to accept? Every paper claims itself
to be the press. Nobody thinks of restraining the freedom
of the responsible organs unless something very extra-
ordinary happens. But what are we to do with these little
sheets that come out from day to day and poison and vitiate
the atmosphere? They are dangerous things. In their case,
power and responsibility do not go together. But I suppose,
one has to face the modern world with its good as well as its
bad and it is better, on the whole, I think, that we give
licence rather than suppress the normal flow of opinion.
That, at any rate, is the democratic method. But having laid
that down, I would beg to say that there is a limit to the
licence that one can allow, more so in times of great peril
to the State. At the present moment, it is our good fortune
that in spite of the difficult problems that we have to face in
the country, we still function normally; the machinery of
government continues to work; the administration goes on
and we try as best we can to face our problems. Yet, we live
in times of grave danger to the world. No man can say what
the next few months might not bring — the next few months
or, if you like, the next year. I am not thinking only of the
elections but of other things that are bigger than elections.
Now, at this moment, when great countries — not to mention
smaller ones — think almost in terms of struggling for survival,
when they think that, in spite of their greatness and power,
they are in danger, then all of us have to think in terms of
survival. And, when a country is face to face with grave
national problems and questions of life and death and
survival, then there must be a certain priority and a certain
preference in its method of doing things. Whether there is a
war or not, we live in a state of deep crisis. So, in this critical
stage where there is always the question of survival, we
cannot function loosely, inefficiently, without discipline,
without responsibility, without thinking of our obligations.

492

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

Therefore, it becomes necessary to give power to this Parlia-
ment or to a future Parliament, which will represent the
organized will of the community in India, to take, in times
of crisis, such steps as it deems fit. To prevent us from doing
this is to deceive yourself and not to have faith in yourself
and to become unable to meet a crisis when it arises, perhaps,
thereby injuring the cause you represent.

Now, what are the amendments that are said to be curbs
and restraints on the press? In the main, the amendment to
clause (2) of Article 19 that we suggest contains three new
phrases. The three phrases are: friendly relations with
foreign States, public order and incitement to an offence.
All the rest, apart from minor changes in the words, are
practically in the old clause (2). The new clause reads thus:
“(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall
affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it
imposes, or prevents the State from making any law
imposing, in the interests of the security of the State,
friendly relations with foreign States, public order,
decency or morality, restrictions on the exercise of the
right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular,
nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation
of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevents
the State from making any law relating to contempt
of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”

The three novel words or sets of words, compared with
the old phraseology, are: friendly relations with foreign
States, public order and incitement to an offence. Let us
examine them. For the moment, as I said, it is only an
enabling measure giving power to Parliament. But let us go
beyond that. Does it involve any radical attack on the basic
conception of the fundamental rights? Take the first thing
— foreign relations. Now, if any one thinks that this is meant
to stifle criticism of foreign countries, he is wrong; it is
certainly not my intention nor, I am quite sure, is it the
intention of my Government. Ultimately, of course, should
the occasion arise, it will be the subject of legislation that
Parliament will undertake. We are not framing any legisla-
tion here. We can only indicate what the legislation is to be

THE STATIC ELEMENT

49S

about. This House will realize that, at this particular moment
when the international situation is delicate and tense, we
cannot take any risks. Anything said and done continuously
may lead to the gravest consequences in regard to foreign
countries and to a rapid deterioration of our relations with
that foreign country. The question as to when that particular
•power is to be granted is surely one that needs careful
examination. All that is said here is that the authority to
deal with this matter should vest with Parliament and
should not be taken away. 1 hope no Membei in this House
is prepared to say that this House should not have the
authority to deal with this matter when grave international
issues are involved. We would, indeed, be helpless spectators
of a steadily deteriorating situation unless this House is
armed with the authority to deal with it in good time.

Then the other things are “public order” and “incite-
ment to an offence”. If such words were to be used in an actual
piece of legislation, they would require lo be examined
strictly, as to how far they go and what powers they would
confer on the executive. But when you use them here, in the
sense of enabling Parliament to take steps, then you should
use some general phrase which would not limit the power
of Parliament to face a situation. When, however, it brings
any legislation to that effect, then examine it thoroughly
and carefully. It is clear that the original clause, as inter-
preted by superior courts in this country, has put this
Government and would put any government in a very diffi-
cult position. The House knows — and it is mentioned in the
Statement of Objects and Reasons — that one of the High
Courts held that even murder or like offences can be
preached. Now, it is an extraordinary state of affairs if this
can be done. It may be and, I am quite sure, it will be that
in the long run judicial interpretation will gradually bring
things more in line with what I would beg to call the spirit
of the Constitution. I have no doubt that, in course of time,
with the help of the highest courts in the land, we shall
develop conventions which will eventually widen the
authority of the Legislature to deal with such matters as has
happened in the United States of America. The unfortunate

494

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1959

part of it is that we just can’t wait for a generation or two
for these conventions to develop. We have to deal with the
situation today and tomorrow, this year and the next year.
Therefore, the safest course is not to pass a legislation in a
hurry but to enable Parliament to have the authority to deal
with such matters. I confess my own belief is that it is always
better for Parliament to have a large measure of authority,
even the authority to make mistakes. Certainly, I realize that
in the conditions as they exist in India today, the exact form
of the Constitution of the United Kingdom, for instance, is
not applicable. We are too big a country, too varied a country.
We have to have a kind of Federation of States that are,
roughly speaking, autonomous. Therefore, it is inevitable
that we should have a written constitution. We have framed
it and it is a fine constitution. Gradually, as we work it.
difficulties appear. As wise men, we deal with them and
change the Constitution accordingly. May I say, in connec-
tion with the use of the coercive apparatus of the State to deal
with these problems, that it has been our misfortune in the
past two or three years to have had to use it in a variety of
ways? We have had to use it because we 'have had some-
times to face a challenge which can only be comparable to
the challenge of war. The challenge may have come from
inside but it was none-the-less a challenge to the State as war
is a challenge, a challenge through violence and violent effort.
We had to face it — as every State has to face it — by the
organized strength of the State, whether it is of the police or
of the military, whether it was in Telengana or elsewhere.
Speaking of Telengana, I should like to remind the House
of what is happening today. The situation is being met in a
different way. It is a peaceful way, a non-violent way. We
have been seeing the frail figure of Vinoba Bhave marching
alone into Telengana and producing a tremendous effect
on the people by his word and action and producing,
perhaps even now, much more effect than any armed force
could have done. If it is so effective even in the immediate
present, taking a longer view, it will certainly be much
more so. It is patent that the effect of armed force is
good for the time being but in the long run it may not be

THE STATIC ELEMENT 495

so effective and may, in addition, leave a trail of bitter
memories.

I shall now proceed with another important thing,
namely, Article 31. When I think of this Article, a whole
array of pictures comes before my mind, because this Article
deals with the abolition of the zamindari system, with land
laws and the agrarian reform. I am not a zamindar; nor am
I a tenant. 1 am an outsider. But throughout my public life
I have been intimately connected with agrarian agitation
in my province. 1 have a certain emotional reaction to it
and an awareness of it, which is not merely intellectual but
much more. If there is one thing to which we, as a party,
have been committed in the past generation, it is the agrarian
reform and the abolition of the zamindari system.

A survey of Asia today will lead any intelligent person to
see that the basic and the primary problem in Asia is the
land problem. There are many ways of dealing with this
problem. And every day of delay adds to the difficulties and
dangers. In many countries, we have seen this 'problem being
dealt with quickly and without any check, either by absolute
expropriation or by following some middle way, namely,
that of partial expropriation and partial compensation of a
nominal kind. Anyhow, they have done s.o and have produced
a new stability. I am not going into the justice or injustice of
it but am looking at it purely from the point of view of
stability. Of course, if you go into the justice or injustice of
the question, you have to take a longer view. However, we
adopted another method and I think we were right in doing
so. We tried to deal with the land problem, not in a hurry
but as adequately as we could, after full thought and
consideration. I am not going further into those questions
but it is patent that when you are out to produce a certain
basic equality, when you are out to remedy inequalities, you
don’t remedy inequalities by producing further inequalities.
We don’t want any one to suffer. But, inevitably, in big
social changes some people have to suffer. We have to think
in terms of large schemes of social engineering and not of
petty reforms. Now, if all our schemes of reform like this
are stopped, perhaps rightly stopped, maybe due to a correct

496

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

interpretation of the law, though here, too, the lawyers
differ and even the judges have differed — then it means that
we have to wait a generation for things to settle down. But
we cannot wait — that is the difficulty. Even in the last three
years or so, some very important measures passed by the
State Assemblies have been held up. No doubt, as I said, the
interpretation of the courts must be accepted as right but in
the meantime you, I and the country have to face social
and economic upheavals. How are we to meet this challenge
of the times? How are we to answer the question: For the
last 10 or 20 years, you have said, ‘We will do this.’ Why
have you not done it? It is not good for us to say, ’We are
helpless before fate and we are unequal to the situation which
we are having to face at present.’ Therefore, we have to
think in terms of big changes and that is why we thought
of amending Article 31. Ultimately, we thought it best to
propose Article 51 (b) and to add to it a Schedule consisting
of a number of Acts passed by the State Legislatures, some
of which have been or might be challenged. We thought it
best to save them from such impediments, so that the process
of change which has been initiated by the State can go
forward unhampered. Many of us present here are lawyers
and have had some training in law which is good training
and many of us respect lawyers. Nevertheless, a lawyer
represents precedents and tradition and not change or
dynamic processes. Above all, the lawyer represents litiga-
tion. We found that somehow the magnificent Constitu-
tion we had framed had been kidnapped and purloined by
the lawyers. An hon. Member has called it a lawyer’s
paradise.

I do not grudge any one entering paradise; but what I
do object to is the shutting of the door and the barring and
bolting of it, so that others are prevented from coming in.
The other day, I was reading an article about India by a very
eminent American and in that article, which contained many
correct and some incorrect statements, the author finished
up by saying that India had very difficult problems to face.
But the most acute of them, he said, could be put in five
words and these five words were: land, water, babies, cows

INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL FREEDOM

497

and capital. I think that there is a great deal of truth in this
concise analysis of the Indian situation.

Important as they are, I am not, for the moment, going to
say anything about babies or cows; nor do I wish to say
anything about capital which is a most important question.
Our capital resources are matters with which my colleague,
the Finance Minister, and the Planning Commission are
dealing but we come back to land and water. Water is
connected with the land that we want to improve. Finallv,
we come back to the land which is the most important of all
and, if we do not make proper arrangements for the land,
all our other schemes, whether they have to do with the
Grow More Food campaign or with anything else, may fail.
Therefore, it is necessary that something in the nature of the
amendment to Article 31 I have suggested should be
accepted. Again, if I may say so, what is intended is to give
power to this House or to a future Parliament to deal with a
crisis, so that it may not feel helpless when a situation arises
t\hich calls for its intervention.

INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL FREEDOM

M r Speaker, Sir, we have had a prolonged debate on the
Motion that I placed before the House. I have listened
with due respect to the speeches that have been made and have
tried to profit by them. I confess, Sir, that at the end of this
debate I have a lurking suspicion that some Members of this
House have not, perhaps, quite understood the import of this
Bill or have drawn certain inferences without warrant. Some
of the statements made have absolutely no bearing on this
Bill as far as I can see. I am not merely referring to the hon.
Member who spoke this morning and told us what we should
do in regard to food, clothing and housing; these are very
important subjects but, if I may venture to say so, they are

Reply to debate in Parliament on the reference to a Select Committee of
the Bill to amend the Constitution of India, New Delhi, May 18, 1951

498

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1955

totally irrelevant to the issue before the House. Apart from
that, some other hon. Members of this House spoke with
a great deal of vehemence and feeling about the restrictions
on the press, the undermining of liberty and freedom, in fact,
about the way the executive was arming itself with all kinds of
powers. Not only hon. Members but some foreign news-
papers have also talked about the Bill having imposed all
kinds of restraints on the press and on the freedom of the
individual. One hon. Member has alleged that this Bill treats
the Constitution as a scrap of paper. Another hon. Member
has talked about the sweeping restrictions on the press and
yet another has said that this is the most undemocratic
measure known to the world. Either the hon. Members have
not taken the trouble to understand the contents of the Bill
or they have deliberately misunderstood them. I put the Bill
before the House with the firm conviction that such a measure
is needed and I see no reason to apologize for this Bill.

What is this measure about which so much has been
said? Listening to the speeches of the hon. Members I
sometimes felt that they were play-acting. The other day,
an hon. Member referred to some village plays, where the
person who acted as Duryodhan later shaved off his
moustache and re-appeared as Draupadi. It seems to me
that some hon. Members are, in the same way, playing a
number of roles in the course of the same speech.

I beg this House to understand the measure as it is and
not to import other considerations into it. Many things are
happening in this wide world and in this great country about
which opinions may differ and they do differ but there is no
reason why we should involve ourselves in this controversy.

I want the House to consider this measure coolly and dis-
passionately and I sincerely believe that, far from changing
the Constitution, these amendments give full effect to the
Constitution. What these amendments seek to introduce was
implicit in the Constitution when we discussed it again and
again in the Constituent Assembly. Indeed, it is implicit in
similar constitutions and must be so, if the State is to endure.

Remember also that this measure has nothing to do with
the making of any fresh law. That is for Parliament to do.

INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL FREEDOM

499

whether it be this Parliament or some other that may suc-
ceed it.

So, to talk of the executive as if it were trying to grab
power is completely wide of the mark. Whatever decisions
may be arrived at in Parliament, they will naturally have to
abide by the Constitution.

Take some of the principal amendments. The second one
seeks to amend Article 1 9(2) which refers to friendly relations
with foreign Powers; it refers to security of the State and
public order and then to incitement to violence. May I say
that, when I spoke the last time, I did not go deeply into the
wording of this clause? I rather dealt with the principle
underlying it and with the difficulties we had to face. I did
not deal with the wording, partly because I had hoped that
we were going to appoint a Select Committee wnich would
suggest a better wording, if necessary, Anyhow, we shall keep
our minds open about the wording and, if fresh wisdom
dawns upon us, we shall change it accordingly.

Then again, when it comes to the question of wording, we
enter the legalistic sphere. I suppose I am enough of a lawyer
to be able to say something about it, if necessary. But I feel
that there are better lawyers here who could deal with it
more effectively. Indeed, this morning we had a very able, a
very exhaustive and illuminating address from my honour-
able colleague, the Law Minister. I would rather put to the
House a slightly different approach to this question, for what
we have sought to do in these amendments is partly implicit
in the Constitution and partly explicit.

Take Article 19 (2). This itself is a restriction on the bald
statement in Article 19 (1) (a). There is no such thing as one
hundred per cent freedom for the individual to act as he
wishes in any social group. This concept of individual freedom
arose in the days of autocracy when an autocratic ruler or a
group of rulers suppressed individual freedom. In a demo-
cratic society, the concept of individual freedom has to be
balanced with social freedom and the relations of the
individual with the social group. The individual must not
infringe on the freedom of other individuals. In the Constitu-
tion the basic concept is given in Article 19(1) (a):

500

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

“All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and
expression.”

Clause (2) of the same Article says:

“Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the
operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or
prevents the State from, making any law relating to libel,
slander, defamation, contempt of court or any matter which
offends against decency or morality or which undermines
the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State.”

Clause (2) is thus a restriction of the bald statement on
freedom. This restriction does not mean that it is the only
possible restriction — it merely indicates the nature of future
restrictions. There may be a legitimate need for such restric-
tions. I will give you a rather ridiculous example to illustrate
my point. Suppose, I choose to exercise my right of individual
freedom by walking on the right side of the road and not on
the left. The policeman will arrest me or I will be run over by
a car and that will be the end of me. There are a hundred
and one restrictions that limit individual freedom if you live
in society. Clause (2) which covers libel, slander, morality,
decency and the security of the State is not an exhaustive list
of such restrictions. Others are either understood or implied.
Normally, it might not have been necessary to say very
much about these: but since some doubts have been raised
about the implied restrictions, it has become necessary to
remove them. Every State must have the right of, what
Dr Ambedkar called, police power. Every State has to defend
itself against an external enemy or an internal enemy and
freedom has to be limited for that reason. The State has to
defend itself and no constitution can take away that right
from the State. It can restrict the unfair or partial exercise
of that right. Therefore, clause (2) by itself cannot possibly
be an exhaustive clause. Where there are no written consti-
tutions and no fundamental rights, they naturally grow round
the common law or are sometimes made explicit by Parlia-
mentary enactment. Where there are written constitutions,
these rights have been rendered explicit by judicial inter-
pretations. Take the Constitution of the United States of
America. In its beginning it was only an adaptation of the

INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL FREEDOM

501

colonial constitution framed by the British Power in America.
It was based on the colonial constitution, as ours has been
based on the Government of India Act of 1935. The extent
to which the provisions of the 1935 Act have taken over in
our Constitution is extraordinary. Had a new constitution
been framed later by the United States, it would probably
have been different. But they stuck to the old Constitution
and through the process of judicial interpretation they
incorporated what was implied in the existing Constitution.
In the course of the last hundred and fifty years or more,
conventions and interpretations which were implicit have
been made explicit.

Our difficulty has been this: something that we considered
to be implicit in the Constitution, something that seemed
obvious, if looked at from the strictly narrow, legalistic and
literal meaning of the words, is not implicit. Though a thing
is obvious, it may not actually be implicit if you look at it
in a legalistic way, as sometimes judges tend to. Unless
you take a broad view, you will narrow the scope of the
Constitution and limit the very ideas of the framers of the
Constitution.

Nearly all the Members who are present in this House
had a share in the framing of this Constitution and they will
remember the long debates we have had in connection with
it. We spent many months over it but that does not mean
everything we did was perfect. No doubt, we shall learn by
experience and try to remedy our mistakes. My first point,
Sir, is this: that in the principal amendments that we seek to
put forward, there is no attempt at changing the Constitu-
tion. We have only sought to bring out what is implicit and
the need of which everybody, who considers the matter
carefully and dispassionately, must also recognize. This
especially applies to Article 19(2).

There are, in Article (2), the words "friendly relations
with foreign States.” In the course of a debate, reference was
made to some Act of 1932. I looked it up: the Act provides
against the publication of statements likely to prejudice the
maintenance of friendly relations. This Act was originally
meant to apply to the Indian States and the States outside

33—11 DPD/SS

502

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

but adjoining India. In other words, it was meant for
Afghanistan and Nepal plus the States in India. The purport
of the Act is this: that before any action can be taken against
a ruler in a court of law, the Government of India must
authorize it. There is also a reference to the power of the
State to stop publications, etc. This Act cannot be applied
today because the Indian States have ceased to be. Of our
two neighbouring countries, one is no longer a neighbour:
with the other, we are on friendly terms. So far as I know,
there is no other Act that can apply in this case. Therefore,
unless Parliament passes legislation in the future with
regard to friendly relations with foreign Powers, there will be
no Act that can govern them. Even if there is no Act, some
things are implicit as Dr Ambedkar has already pointed out.
No matter how much freedom you may give a person, if an
individual does something which might result in war, it is
very serious indeed. No State, in the name of freedom, can
submit to actions which may result in war and wholesale
destruction. The State may sometimes act wrongly but you
cannot take away its power to prevent anything happening
which may lead to war. If the action of the State itself leads
to war, obviously, the State is in the wrong and Parliament,
in so far as it represents the State, should pull up the executive
or change it. If Parliament itself goes wrong, then what
should be done? Then that Parliament should be replaced by
another Parliament. If the people go wrong, then there is no
help for it.

Anyway, lam not aware of any State, democratic, semi-
democratic or otherwise, which will not pull up a person or
a group which threatens its security from within or without.
Therefore, to frame laws in regard to relationship with
foreign Powers is an inherent right of Parliament. I do
maintain, with all respect, that nothing in the Fundamental
Rights can take away that right, because it is the basic right
of the State. It is especially so at a time when the world is
faced with great difficulties, great tensions, great dangers
and possibly with grave disasters. Can we ignore all this and
think in terms of some academic exercise of the eighteenth
century, forgetting that we are in the middle of the twentieth

INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL FREEDOM

SOS

century? I submit that the introduction of a provision about
friendly relations with foreign Powers does not change the
Constitution, does not extend it and does not limit individual
freedom in the slightest degree.

In regard to foreign Powers, our policy, which this House
has approved of on many occasions, is one of friendship and
co-operation. Because it is a policy of friendship with other
nations it becomes all the more necessary that we should not
encourage activities which injure our relations with other
Powers. Some hon. Members pointed out that things have
been said in China or in Russia or in other countries that
have been bitterly critical of individuals or the Government
in this country. Our newspapers and our people have also
used strong language sometimes. There is no ouestion of
ruling out criticism or strong language but there are times
when criticism overshoots the mark and threatens disrup-
tion or endangers our international interests and relations.

And so, we have to intervene. In what way or in what
measure is a matter for Parliament to determine, because
there is no law at the present moment to control these things.

Let us take the other matter, namely, “friendly relations
with foreign States and public order.” As I have said, so far
as the actual wording is concerned it can perhaps be
improved. This is the best that we could put forward; in any
case, it can be considered in the Select Committee but the
fact remains that public order is as much a part of the security
ot the State as anything else. It is perfectly true that a
government or a judicial officer may interpret these words
widely or narrowly; they may be used when they should
not be used. If you are formulating an Act, it is desirable
that you use words precisely and definitely so that, as far as
possible, they cannot be misused; but when you are enabling
Parliament to function, then the question of narrowing and
curtailing Parliament's powers does not arise. However,
when Parliament passes an Act, you have to observe carefully
that you do not go too far and do not allow a magistrate or a
judge or somebody else to exercise more power than you
want him to exercise. I can understand that; but you are
merely defining the powers of Parliament and removing

504

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1955

doubts about them and the question of putting in a narrow-
ing word does not arise. I am afraid we are mixing up the
two ideas. We are looking at the subject as if it were an
enactment giving certain powers to the executive. It is
nothing of the kind. It is only an enactment which brings out
the essential and inherent power of the State in regard to
matters affecting the stability and security of the State and
public order in the widest sense of the word; this inherent
power of the State is merely mentioned in the Article. Why
then has this amendment come up? It is because some
doubts have been cast on it. I am quite sure that at the time
of the making of this Constitution, if most of us had been
asked about it, there would not have been any doubt in our
minds; but in recent months some courts in the land have
cast doubts and also differed. I think it was the Bihar High
Court which said something to the effect that the preaching
of murder is allowed under this clause. Some other judge has
also agreed with this point of view. I think that Allahabad
and Nagpur did not accept it. It may be that I am wrong
about the names of the High Courts — anyhow there has
been some disagreement and it is quite possible, as I said, that
ultimately, in course of time, conventions and judicial
interpretations will be established by the Supreme Court
and other courts which will remove these doubts from the
public mind. But, at the present moment, the doubts persist
and the present moment is a difficult moment. Pandit
Kunzru has asked whether any reference to the matter has
been made to the Supreme Court by the Government. I
would like to tell the hon. Member that no such reference has
been made because the Government does not refer any
matters of policy to the Supreme Court. It is only for Parlia-
ment and the Government to decide matters of policy. May
I confess to a feeling of great surprise at the questions that
my friend, the hon. Pandit Kunzru, has put? I have the
example of a certain High Court having expressed a certain
opinion or having given a decision that even the preaching
of murder was justified. That, of course, is an extreme
example. It does not cover the whole field. My honourable
friend has pointed out that the decision of the High Court

INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL FREEDOM

505

followed from a previous ruling of the Supreme Court.
Perhaps, it was so. If this matter were to go to the Supreme
Court and should the Supreme Court decide that the preach-
ing of murder is not allowed under the Constitution, the
issue will be decided; but it will not have decided any general
principle. A man will be able to preach that the hands or
the feet of somebody be cut off because it is only the preach-
ing of murder that is forbidden. Naturally, courts do not
lay down broad policies. They give a ruling from the facts
before them and give a certain opinion which we must
accept and respect. Therefore, when questions of broad
policies arise, you do not go to the courts. Parliament or the
Government functioning under Parliament has to decide
them. When a legal issue has to be interpreted, we go to the
Supreme Court or some other court. Now, doubts have arisen.
High Courts sometimes differ in their decisions. Even if the
Supreme Court, in some cases, brings about a certain measure
of uniformity, the uniformity is confined only to a particular
issue. We shall have to wait for at least fifty or a hundred
rulings on each issue before we can arrive at a consistent
policy. That is the manner in which the American judicial
interpretations have, in the course of a hundred and fifty
years, brought about a certain uniformity. How can we do
the same in the course of only a few months or years, when
every day we are faced with dangers and have to meet a
particular situation? -Further, because doubts have arisen,
because delays occur, because litigation goes on, because
hundreds and thousands of applications are made to the
Supreme Court burdening the honourable Judges with
this work, because of all this we feel that it is desirable, in
the interest of individual freedom, to define clearly this
power that is implicit in the Constitution. It has ceased to
be implicit because of these doubts and interpretations and,
therefore, it has to be made explicit.

Take the words "incitement to an offence": I confess that
the words, as they are, cover a wide field because the offence
may be a minor or a major one. I would like to repeat that
we are not, for the moment, dealing with an enactment on
punishment but with the broad powers of Parliament. Are

506

JAWAMARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-195S

you going to make a long list of offences to be incorporated in
the Constitution? You cannot do it. It is very difficult and
it will make it more and more rigid, with schedules of offences
attached to it. You can do that sort of thing when you deal
with a specific law. But here, we are merely indicating what
was supposed to be implicit. We are making a broad
generalization and the broad generalization may cover
offences that are trivial. It is necessary, however, that when
Parliament makes use of its authority or power. Parliament
and hon. Members should see to it that there is no wrong
application or misuse of it.

Dr S. P. Mookerjee referred to the validity of the laws
in regard to Article 19(2) under which the existing law will be
revalidated and given retrospective effect. I should like to tell
him that all the existing laws were not made invalid by the
Court’s judgment. But as I understand the position, it is
this: some judgment of the superior court might invalidate
a particular law or a part of a law and, if this Bill is passed,
it will, to the extent, remove the invalidity. To what extent
a particular law is valid will depend, even now, on how it is
interpreted. Let us, for instance, take the law of sedition. I
cannot conceive that it will be allowed to function or can
function in future, unless it comes under the clause of
endangering the security of the State, etc., etc. As the House
knows, we have been functioning for the last three and a half
years as an independent country. It is longer than that — three
years and ten months. And these judicial pronouncements
have come only in the course of the last seven or eight
months. In the course of these years — quite apart from
these judicial pronouncements — how far have we had
recourse to these laws? That is for the House to consider.
I cannot give an answer straightaway. If my memory is to
be trusted, we have hardly ever used them. Most of them
have not been used and they cannot be used easily. Perhaps
there were one or two odd cases here and there. But the fact
is that they are of no value now and Parliament can either
put an end to them or have them revised. First of all, the
validity of the Act will be judged in accordance with the
Constitution as amended. It does not automatically become

INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL FREEDOM

507

valid. If it does come within the scope of the amended
Constitution, it will -be considered valid; but from the
strictly practical point of view, those Acts are not alive. If
not wholly dead, they are half dead, though one or two
might not be so. But generally speaking, there is no fear of
their being misused.

The position, therefore, is that this House can takd up
these laws, put an end to them, modify them or do what it
likes with them. There might be an interval, possibly of a few
months; but there can be no fear that during these few
months they will be misused. The press in India functions
quite differently from the way it used to in the past. The press
is not an external force. It is a powerful force but it is an
internal force. Previously, it had to influence an aiien govern-
ment and the alien government could suppress it or injure
it but today it is much more powerful foi a variety of reasons.
Though it is not of the Government, it is a part of Parlia-
ment, if I may say so. It can make a great deal of noise if any
wrong is done to it. The hon. Deshbandhu Gupta wanted
to know whether the Government would accept the
recommendations made by the Press Laws Enquiry
Committee — which were not accepted in view of the provision
in the Constitution — and thereby relieve the anxiety of the
press to some extent in the interim period. I regret to say
that I have not seen the recommendations of the Press Laws
Enquiry Committee and have no knowledge of them but the
hon. Member will realize that this question can arise only if
this law is passed.

Repeated reference has been made to the freedom of the
press. I venture to say that, so far as I am concerned and so
far as our Government is concerned, we believe entirely in
the freedom of the press. Mr Deshbandhu Gupta was good
enough to read out extracts from the speech I delivered some
time ago. I completely accept what I said then and I am
prepared to repeat it now: but in repeating it, I may say that
in that very speech I also drew the attention of the press to
various things that were happening in connection with the
press in India and appealed to them to put an end to them.
Another thing I wanted to mention was this: we talk of the

508

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

freedom of the press. What exactly do we mean by it?
Today freedom only means suppression or lack of suppression
by governmental authority. When gigantic newspaper chains
spring up and undermine the freedom of the independent
newspapers, when the press in India is controlled by three
or four groups of individuals, what kind of press is that?

I shall now come to Article 31, 31 A and 3 IB. May 1
remind the House or such Members of the House as were
also Members of the Constituent Assembly about the long
debates that we had on this issue? The entire object of these
Articles in the Constitution was to take away the question
of zamindari and land reform from the purview of the Courts.
We put in some proviso in regard to Article 31. It was
deliberately excluded from the jurisdiction of the Courts.
Now, how does it come under their jurisdiction?

Here the Bihar High Court comes in. The Bihar High
Court brings in Article 14, of all articles, to apply it to a
question of land reform. Article 14 says:

“The State shall not deny to any person equality before
the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory
of India.”

Here I am reminded that one has to respect the majesty of
the law. The majesty of the law is such that it looks with an
even eye on the millionaire and the beggar. Whether it is a
millionaire or a beggar who steals a loaf of bread the sentence
is the same. It is all very well to talk about the equality of the
law for the millionaire and the beggar but the millionaire
has not much incentive to steal a loaf of bread, while the
starving beggar has. This business of the equality of law may
very well mean, as it has come to mean often enough, the
making of existing inequalities rigid by law. This is a danger-
ous thing and it is still more dangerous in a changing society.
It is completely opposed to the whole structure and method
of this Constitution and what is laid down in the Directive
Principles.

What are we to do about it? What is the Government
to do? If a Government has not even the power to legislate
to bring about equality gradually, the Government fails
to do what it has been commanded to do by the Constitution.

INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL FREEDOM

509

That is why I said that the amendments I have placed before
the House are meant to give effect to the Constitution. I am
not changing the Constitution by an iota: I am merely
making it stronger. I am merely giving effect to the real
intentions of the framers of the Constitution and to the
wording of the Constitution unless of course it is interpreted
very narrowly. Looking at the narrow issue that came up in
Madras, I shall say that this amendment is not intended to be
a communal amendment. We must distinguish between the
communal approach and the approach of helping our weaker
and more backward brothers and sisters. And, although it is
my amendment, I don’t particularly like the woids “back-
ward class of citizens” and I hope the Select Committee will
find some better wording. What I mean is this: it the
backward individual citizen that we should Help. Why
should we brand groups and classes as backward and
forward? It is a fact that certain groups or classes are
backward but I do not wish to brand them as such or treat
them as such.

In this connection, may I say that a group or class which,
perhaps, deserves greater sympathy from this House is the
tribal folk, whether in the North-East Frontier tract or in
Central India or elsewhere? Many of our colleagues in
this House represent the Scheduled Castes and not only
help us in our work but keep us informed of the needs of the
Scheduled Castes. However, we have very few persons in
this House to speak for the Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, it
should be the special concern and care of this House to look
after the interests of the Scheduled Tribes and their advance-
ment in every way and when we add these words to Article
15, we certainly include the Scheduled Tribes.

In regard to Article 3 IB, I don’t think I need say much.
Some doubts did arise because of the judgment of the
Allahabad High Court in regard to the nationalization of
public transport services. Now, we have been following a
policy which is normally called a policy of ‘mixed’ economy.
We encourage private enterprise and, at the same time,
we widen the activities of the State in these matters; that is to
say, there is more and more nationalization or socialization

510

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

of services. It is essential, therefore, that the State should
have the power to nationalize. Even in a country like the
United States of America, which is committed to the
individualistic and capitalistic form of government more
than any other country, you will find that the progressive
socialization of public utilities and the like is going on. The
progress made so far has been very considerable. But in this
country and in countries like India where private enterprise,
howsoever you may encourage it, is limited in scope and
resources, the State must inevitably come in. The State must
have the power to nationalize completely or partly anything
that it takes up and that is why this elucidation has been
put in.

We have heard a great deal about democracy and about
freedom in the course of this debate. In newspapers outside
this country some of us, especially I, have been criticized for
forgetting our stand in the past. Well, it is very difficult to
judge oneself and it may be that unconsciously some of us
have erred; but I am not aware of that fact. So far as we are
concerned, we still try to act up to our ideals of democracy
and freedom. But it was rather a mixed pleasure to me to
hear democracy and freedom being praised by some hon.
Members in this House who were not particularly associated
with these concepts in the past — in fact, who opposed them.
Anyhow, this is a welcome change and we hope it will lead
to a better understanding between us in the future.

One thing rather surprised me. T think it was Dr Kunzru
who asked: ‘Why do you make these changes when you have
got the Preventive Detention Act?’ First of all, these changes
do not give us any power to do anything; but apart from that.
Dr Kunzru and this House will not like the use of the Preven-
tive Detention Act all the time or at any time for the matter
of that, unless they are compelled by circumstances to use it
for a short while. So, to rely on that as a stand-by is a danger-
ous thing. We want to put an end to it and not use it as far
as possible.

I hope, therefore, that this House will agree to refer this
Bill to Select Committee. I might add that I should have
liked to have as much co-operation from the House as possible

EQUALITY AND THE BACKWARD CLASSES 511

in this Select Committee but one cannot have an indefinite
number of Members. We selected twenty-one, I believe. 1
would gladly have added a few more but, at this moment,
I have to confine myself to that figure. If one goes on adding,
I do not quite know where it will stop. We have also invited
a number of other Members to assist us and I hope they will
do so. I beg to move, Sir, that the Bill be referred to a Select
Committee.

EQUALITY AND THE BACKWARD CLASSES

T he Select Committee has considered the matter of amend-
ing the Constitution for six days; and yet, to say that it was
considered for six days does not perhaps convey the right
impression, because the amount of time and thought given
by the Committee to this matter probably represents more
than six days. The Committee consisted of many hon.
Members of this House and represented a variety of opinion.
Each member pressed — quite rightly — the particular view
he held with all the force at his command. It was our desire
to come to an understanding in this Committee and we
attempted to fulfil it as far as we could. It was a serious
matter. Indeed, every amendment in the Constitution is a
serious matter. Our attempt was to find common ground and
may I say that, in effect, we did find it in a great measure.
Even though a number of minutes of dissent are attached to
this report, I think that the agreement we found in the course
of our deliberations was far greater than might be thought
by a casual reader of these minutes. I am trying to point out
that we approached this question, not in a partisan spirit
but in a spirit of understanding. We weighed and balanced
the opinions of our critics and tried to find a way out which
would, as far as possible, be satisfactory to all concerned. 1

Speech in Parliament while moving; the resolution "That the Bill to amend
the Constitution of India, as reported bv the Select Committee, be taken into
consideration". New Delhi, May 29, 1951

512 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

think, on the whole, we succeeded. Therefore, the report
that I presented to the House is, I believe, an improvement
on the original Bill that I placed before the House. Opinions
may differ and it is often seen that, where there is an attempt
to find a middle way, there is a certain dissatisfaction on
either side. But I think the report does represent a very hard
and continuous attempt to express our intentions in as good a
language as possible, without doing any violence to the
spirit of (he Constitution. Indeed, as I said at an earlier stage,
the amendments we sought to put in, irrespective of how
they w r ere worded, were meant more to clarify than to
change any part of the Constitution. Naturally, any amplifica-
tion would, of necessity, involve some change in the
interpretation; nevertheless, we constantly kept in view the
spirit which animates the Constitution.

In the minutes of dissent, stress is laid on the fact that the
Constitution has only been in existence for sixteen months
and that the period is too short to warrant an amendment
already. I would not venture to criticize that statement. And
yet, I think that, in this connection, the period of sixteen
months has little bearing on the subject. The presumption
is that we would be in a better position to judge after sixteen
years. No doubt, we shall be — if we are still there. It has
often been said to those who always talk about ‘the long run’
that they will all be dead by then, anyhow. The question is
not whether the Constitution has been in existence for months
or for years but rather what requires to be done. We have had
some experience and the conditions that face us have made it
desirable that certain changes be made. The fact that the
Constitution is only sixteen months old should not count at
all. Therefore, our only consideration should be whether
such a change is necessary or not.

A fair number of amendments have been suggested and,
as the House knows, many of them are of rather a technical
nature. They attempt to overcome some slight difficulty
that had arisen, without interfering with the basic provisions
of the Constitution. There are, in fact, two or three matters
that are considered more important and more basic — those
relating specially to Articles 19, 31 and 15. I do not want to

EQUALITY AND THE BACKWARD CLASSES

51 5

take the time of the House at this stage by referring to the
other Articles in the report, because there is little dissent in
regard to them, although an honourable member of the
Select Committee has objected to the phraseology in one or
two places. But the meaning behind them is accepted and if
it is necessary to change the phraseology by a word here
or a word there in order to bring out the meaning more
clearly, surely we shall have no objection. We have tried to
give it the best wording we could think of.

I come, now, to deal with those three specific Articles on
which a great deal of argument has turned.

There is Article 15(2) or 15(4) as it is proposed to be
made now, that is to say, the Article which says that nothing in
Article 15(2) or Article 29(2) should come in the way of
our making special provisions for certain groups or classes
which are not specifically defined.

I wonder if the House remembers that, when I referred to
this matter earlier, I mentioned that a small but rather
important matter had been left out by an oversight in the Bill
as it was printed. At that time, the clause relating to Article
15 said: “Nothing in Article 15(2) will come in the way of...”
and so on. In fact, what we had decided to say was — "nothing
in Article 15 and in Article 29(2) will come in the way of,
etc.” Unfortunately the words “Article 29(2)” had been
left out owing to a slight error. I mention this merely to
indicate that this was not an afterthought on our part. It was
an error for which I take my full share of responsibility. It
was not an afterthought to include Article 29(2) because we
had decided to do so before actually putting it in the Bill.
There were two views in regard to Article 29(2). Many
eminent people think that Article 29(2) does not come in
the way at all in this particular context. Even so, a certain
doubt remained in the people’s minds. We wanted to remove
this doubt. Without going into the details of this Article or
of the amendment proposed, I wish to say a few words about
— shall I say— our basic ideas on this subject. Why have we
done this? Why has it been thought that these Articles come
in the way of our doing something that we wish to do?
The House knows very well that this matter came up in this

514

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

particular form because of certain happenings in Madras;
therefore, there is no need to try and hush it up. The Govern-
ment of Madras State had issued a G.O. — I don’t know its
details — according to which certain reservations were made
for certain classes and communities. The High Court of
Madras said that this G.O. was not in order, that it was
against both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution.
Now, I don’t for an instant challenge the right of the High
Court of Madras to give this decision. Indeed, from a certain
point of view it seems to me, if I may say so with all respect,
that their argument was quite sound and perfectly valid.
That is to say, if communities as such are brought into the
picture, it does go against certain explicit or implied provi-
sions of the Constitution. Nevertheless, while it is quite valid
and we bow to the decision of the High Court of Madras in
this matter, the fact remains that we are faced with a situation
for which the present generation is not to blame. Therefore,
some sort of special provisions must be made. We have to do
something for the communities which are backward
educationally, economically and in other respects, if we wish
to encourage them in these matters. We come up against
the difficulty that, on the one hand, in our Directive
Principles of Policy we talk of removing inequalities, of
raising the people in every way, socially, educationally and
economically, of reducing the distances which separate the
groups or classes of individuals from one another; on the
other, we find ourselves handicapped in this task by certain
provisions in the Constitution.

An hon. Member has asked in his minute of dissent as to
whom are we thinking of when we talk of people or groups
as backward. After all, as he points out, 80 per cent of our
people are backward in all these respects. This is perfectly
true; but it does not alter the fact that we have to tackle the
problem of backwardness. It is no good saying that because
80 per cent of our people are backward we shall simply
accept the position and do nothing. We have to give them
opportunities — economic, educational and other. Now, in
wanting to do so we find that we are up against certain
provisions in the Constitution regarding equality and non-

EQUALITY AND THE BACKWARD CLASSES

515

discrimination. We arrive at a peculiar tangle, namely, that
we cannot have equality because in trying to attain equality
we come up against certain principles of equality laid down
in the Constitution. That is a very peculiar position. We
cannot have equality because we cannot have non-discrimina-
tion, for if you are thinking of raising those who are down,
you are somehow affecting the status quo, undoubtedly.
You are thus said to be discriminating because you are
affecting the status quo. If this argument is correct, then we
cannot make any major change in the status quo, whether
in the economic or in any other sphere. Clearly, whatever
law you may make, you have to make some change
somewhere.

Take another very important objective of ours: the
attempt to realize an egalitarian or some other form of society
in which the differences based on birth or income or position
are not great. In our attempt to achieve it, we want to put
an end to all those infinite divisions that have arisen in our
social life; I am referring to the caste system and other
religious divisions, call them by whatever name you like.
There are, of course, economic divisions also; we are consci-
ous of them and we try to deal with them, though not always
very satisfactorily. It is thus one of our objectives to get rid
of these and to give every individual in India an opportunity
to grow as also to build up a united nation where the indi-
viduals do not think so much of their particular group
or caste but of the community at large. While, however, that
may be our objective, the fact remains that these large
numbers of divisions and fissures in our social life still exist,
though I think they are becoming fewer and fewer. We are
gradually obliterating all those hard and fast laws that divide
us; nevertheless, the process is slow and we cannot ignore the
present altogether. We cannot ignore the existing facts.
Therefore, one has to keep a balance between the facts as we
find them and the objective and ideal that we aim at. If we
stick to the existing facts alone, then we are static and un-
changing and shall be giving up our objectives and the
Directive Principles of Policy laid down in the Constitution.
That, of course, we cannot do and must not do. On the other

516

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1955

hand, if we talk only about the Directive Principles and
ignore the existing facts, then we may talk logic and even
find sense in a way but what we say will have little relation
to the facts.

Hence, we must find a middle way between our objectives
and the existing facts. We must keep our ideal in view and
then take steps which will gradually carry us in that direction.
At the same time, we must not ignore the existing facts. We
have to deal with the existing facts anyhow, even if it means
fighting the existing situation.

The House will, surely, appreciate our difficulties and
understand that in grappling with this problem it is possible
to lay emphasis on this aspect or that aspect of it. Both aspects
are important and the real difficulty arises in finding a
balance between the two. Nor can we find that balance by
saying ‘aye’ or ‘nay’ as some hon. Members seem to think.
Normally, problems cannot be answered so easily. We have
to consider them in their relation to a hundred other things
before we can bring the ideal into some relation with the
actual. These were the considerations at the back of our minds
when we discussed the matter in the Select Committee.

I think I may say with perfect truth that every single
member of the Select Committee recognized the desirability
of giving an opportunity for growth to those who may, in any
sense, be considered backward. Some members were, how-
ever, afraid that any provision that may be made to this
end would be abused and utilized for the benefit of the very
communal divisions that have done us so much injury. This
fact, very rightly, troubled their minds as it must trouble
the minds of each one of us. As I said, we tried to find a
middle way and I submit that in the wording we have
adopted for the Article in question, we have found a way of
meeting the difficulty more or less successfully.

You must have read the paragraph in the report which

says: “ it might well be said that with the object of this

amendment of the Constitution there is practically unanim-
ous agreement here. The only difference comes in some-
times, to a slight extent in regard to certain apprehensions
that it arouses. It was for this reason that even in the Select

EQUALITY AND THE BACKWARD CLASSES

517

Committee’s Report we drew attention to these fears and
apprehensions and said that we were quite sure that the
Select Committee is of the view that this provision is not
likely to be, and cannot indeed be, misused by any
Government for perpetuating any class discrimination or for
treating non-backward classes as backward for the purpose
of conferring privileges on them.”

We earnestly hope that if and when this provision is
passed, it will not be misused. Nobody can give a guarantee
against its misuse. We can only try our best to create the
conditions where such misuse may not be made. What I wish
to assure this House about is this, that we are alive to the
possibility that this Article may be used for a purpose 10 which
we are opposed. May I add that when we talked with certain
members, including the Chief Minister of the Madras
Government, they told us that they realized and appreciated
our difficulty and assured us that they had no desire to use
it in any objectionable way? Hence, I would commend this
particular amendment of Article 15 to the House.

I come now to Article 19(2), which has perhaps given
rise to more comment and controversy than any other
suggested amendment. I believe that two or more honourable
members of the Select Committee have protested and raised
objections to the fact that they were not supplied with a list
of the laws that would be affected by these changes. Most
of these laws find a place in one of the schedules that have
recently been passed. Therefore, every one of them is easily
available. These laws were considered carefully by our Law
Department. In regard to the other laws, however, I have
not quite understood the complaint or, if I may say so, having
understood it partly, I have not quite been able to see what
I can do about it. It is exceedingly difficult to make a list of
all the laws which might be affected. There are some that
I can mention straight off and tell you what effect this
amendment will have on a particular law or a part of that
law. I can do that in cases where the Supreme Court or the
High Court has already given a ruling. Even in such cases I
do not know exactly what the position will be. It is not as
though we "were suddenly resuscitating or reviving some laws

14—11 DFD/63

518

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

that have become obsolete, disabled or blocked. We wish, in
certain cases, to change the interpretation given by some of
our superior courts. What effect that change in the interpre-
tation will have on any particular law cannot be decided by
us. Ultimately, it can only be decided by the superior courts
of the land as to what effect this particular amendment,
when passed, will have on a particular law. My view in these
matters will not be final; it will only be an opinion which I
might give with my limited knowledge of the law.

I speak with great respect when I have to deal with the
law, because I have not only great respect for the judges but
also great fear of the lawyers. Take, for instance, Section
153 A of the Indian Penal Code which deals with what might
be called communal discord or the preaching of enmity
between the communities. The amendment we seek to
introduce relates to the question of how such discord can be
dealt with. If this amendment is passed, the preaching of
communal hatred can certainly be controlled.

Let us take Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. So
far as I am concerned, that particular Section is highly
objectionable and obnoxious. It should be given no place in
our Constitution for reasons, both practical and historical.
The sooner we get rid of it the better. We might deal with the
subject of tills Section in other ways, in more limited ways,
as every other country does but that particular Section as it
is should have no place, because all of us have had enough
experience of it in a variety of ways. Apart from the fact that
the logic of the situation does not warrant it, our instincts
are against it. Suppose you pass an amendment relating to a
particular Article of the Constitution, surely, that particular
Article will not put an end to the spirit, the language and the
objectives of the Constitution. It will only clear up any point
that may arise in connection with that particular Article.

In so far as the question of reviving the laws is concerned,
I would like to say that this is only a matter of removing
certain obstructions that have arisen. An object in seeking
this amendment is, first of all, that we shall be able to deal
with the situation effectively; secondly, by ■ considering the
whole matter afresh, we shall be able to put an end to those

EQUALITY AND THE BACKWARD CLASSES

519

old laws which are objectionable. Indeed, some of the old laws
are such that it became difficult for us to seek any new legis-
lation even in this matter. The House will remember that
there was a Committee known as the Press Laws Enquiry
Committee. This Committee made certain recommendations
and it was stated by some Members here and many people
outside that these recommendations had been rejected in
toto by the Government or by the Home Minister. The fact of
the matter is that many of these recommendations were com-
pletely pointless according to the interpretation of certain
courts, the ruling of which we were bound to accept as
correct. We could either accept those interpretations or accept
the recommendations. If you pass this amendment, then the
recommendations — if, of course, you approve of them —
can be considered as capable of being effective. 1 o my mind,
these recommendations do not go far enough in some respects.
But this is a matter of judgment and personal opinion.

As I stated earlier, it was not our desire to curb or restrain
the freedom of the press when we brought forward these
amendments. That, of course, is no excuse if the words in the
amendments actually do so. I realize this and I know that it
is folly for a government to say ‘but that was far from our
minds’ of ^ consequence that inevitably follows an action
taken by the Government. Nevertheless, I should like to
repeat that we had no intentions of curbing the freedom of
the press. We are dealing with a difficult situation; and for a
variety of reasons, both national and international, it grows
more difficult every day. It was not merely in terms of curbing
the press that we thought of this problem but in much wider
terms. We had also been considering the question of the press
at the same time; we wanted to deal with it separately, in
consultation with the people concerned, to put an end to
some old laws and introduce something that was "more in
conformity with modern practices. However, it is perfectly
true that this amendment affects the freedom of the press to
some extent. It does so in two ways: directly and indirectly.
The amendment may obstruct the press in theory directly
or it may give to the Government a chance to impose certain
disabilities. I recognize both the possibilities. As far as we are

520

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

concerned, we do not wish to take advantage of this change
in order to curb the freedom of the press; nor do we wish
any State Government to do so. We wish to review the whole
scheme as soon as possible; but I would beg of you to consider
the matter both from the point of view of theory and that of
practice.

Great exception has been taken to some additional
phrases in Article 19(2). First of all, may I draw your atten-
tion to a major change? Although the change is the addition
of one word only, it is a major change. I am referring to the
introduction of the word “reasonable” which can be inter-
preted to mean that everything done is patently justiciable.
I would like to point out that even without the introduction
of this word every part of the Constitution, within some
limitations, is always justiciable. Therefore, whether the
word “reasonable” was there or not, the matter could have
gone to a court of law and could have been interpreted by our
superior Courts. It is true that their interpretation would have
been limited by the changes that we have made. Nothing can,
however, take away their power to consider any part of the
Constitution and to give their opinion. But an amendment
can certainly be phrased so as to direct attention along a
particular channel. Suppose the word “reasonable” was
absent from all the various sub-clauses of Article 19, as, in
fact, it is absent from the various sub-clauses, it would not
mean that the idea underlying the word “reasonable” was
also absent. It is there, although. the word may be absent.
However, I shall not go into a technical argument. My point
is that, whatever the power the Court might have had,
certainly the introduction of the word “reasonable” gives the
Court direct authority to consider this matter.

The question may be asked why we did not introduce the
word “reasonable” earlier. The reason was not that we
wished to prevent the Courts from coming into the picture
and giving their interpretation. We only wanted to avoid an
excess of litigation, we wanted to avoid the hundreds and,
perhaps, thousands, of references that would constantly have
been made by odd individuals and groups, thereby holding
up the working of the State and producing, in addition.

EQUALITY AND THE BACKWARD CLASSES

521

confusion in people’s minds at a time when such confusion
might do grave injury to the State.

An hon. Member has said that this is a matter of Funda-
mental Rights. Does he mean to say that a matter of
Fundamental Rights ought to be allowed to lead not only to
confusion but to grave danger to the State? Surely not. No
single fundamental right can survive any grave danger to
the State. And I want the House to be clear about this and
realize the nature of the times we live in, in this country and
in other countries, and not to quote so often the ancient scripts
and maxims that belong to the time of the French Revolution
and the American Revolution. Many things havr happened
since then. It is odd that some of my honourable friends
have taken umbrage at the amendment in the Constitution
and held that the Constitution is something sacred. Some of
them or their colleagues outside this House have openly
stated that the first thing they would do if they came to power
is to scrap this Constitution. That is a curious position to
take — that this Constitution has to be scrapped just as this
Parliament has to be scrapped and something new has to
come in its place. What we want to do is not to change it
but to amend it slightly.

Some hon. Members who have recorded their dissent
have referred to the sacred and sacrosanct character of the
Constitution. A constitution must be respected, if there is to
be any stability in the land. A constitution must not be made
the plaything of fickle fortune. All this is true. At the same
time, it should be remembered that we have in India a
strange habit of making gods of various things and adding
them to our vast pantheon. Having given them our
theoretical worship, we do exactly the reverse of what we
should. If we want to kill something in this country we deify
it first. That is largely the habit in this country.

So, if you wish to kill this Constitution, make it sacred
and sacrosanct. If you want it to be a dead thing, not a
growing thing, a static, unwieldy, unchanging thing, then by
all means do so, realizing that it is the best way of destroying it.
For, however good the ideas of the philosophers of the 18th
and the early 19th century might have been — and they are

522

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

very good — the world has changed and grown beyond them
within a hundred years. The world has changed mightily in
the course of your generation and mine and we have seen
^reat wars and great revolutions. We have seen the most
perfect of constitutions upset, not because they lacked perfec-
tion but because they lacked reality, because they failed to
deal with the real problems of the day. Do you know of any
better framed or better phrased constitution than the Consti-
tution of the Weimar Republic — the German Constitution?
It was perfect in wording, phraseology, balance and adjust-
ment. Yet, that whole constitution went, lock, stock and bar-
rel. Away it vanished into the dustbin of history.

Do you know of a better constitution than that of the
Republic of Spain which unhappily was killed, assassinated
about 11 or 12 years ago? It was a magnificent constitution.
It went so far as to say that it would not go to war with any
country or make treaty with any foreign country unless the
League of Nations of the day permitted it to do so or agreed
to its doing so. It was a constitution breathing a fine spirit of
idealism. Yet, those fine idealists who framed it are spread
over the far corners of the world and that constitution has no
place in Spain.

I have given you two instances; I could give you any
number of them from every country of Europe and many
countries of Asia. Do not imagine, therefore, that because we
have passed a constitution and because we call it sacred and
sacrosanct, we have necessarily given it stability. Do not also
imagine that anything that is considered by you stable is
necessarily so. If it is true that country and a community
grow — they are not static — then surely conditions arise which
should be dealt with in a way different from the old one.

Do you wish India to continue as it is? Surely not. You
want industrial growth, you want social equality, you want
all kinds of things to happen here. You have yourself laid
them down in the Directive Principles. And as I said on the
last occasion, the real difficulty we have to face is a conflict
between the dynamic ideas contained in the Directive
Principles of Policy and the static position of certain things
that are called ‘fundamental’, whether they relate to property

EQUALITY AND THE BACKWARD CLASSES

S2S

or to something else. Both are important undoubtedly. How
are you to get over the difficulty? A constitution which is
unchanging and static — it does not matter how good it is,
how perfect it is — is a constitution that has outlived its use.
It is in its old age already and gradually approaching its
death. A constitution to be living must be growing, must be
adaptable, must be flexible, must be changeable. And if there
is one thing which the. history of political developments has
pointed out, it is this. The great strength of the British
people has resided in their flexible constitution. They have
known how to adapt themselves to the biggest changes, cons-
titutionally. Sometimes they went through the process of fire
and revolution. Even then they tried to ;dapt their
constitution to the new conditions and went their way.
An hon. Member wanted to remind me of a fact that had not
escaped me, namely, that they have no written constitution.
We in this country could not obviously emulate the British
in having an unwritten constitution. We cannot do that,
especially in a big country with numerous autonomous
provinces and States. Nevertheless, the other extreme of a
rigid constitution, too, is a dangerous one, which might lead
to the break-up of that constitution. Life is a curve — it is not
a straight line — and the life of a nation is even more of a
curve in these changing times. Logical and straight lines are
tangents which go off the curve and if the tangent is too far
away from the curve of life and the curve of a nation’s life,
then there is conflict and upheaval. Something new emerges
because you come back, as you must, to the line of life
because you cannot depart too far from it. So, if you are
flexible in your action and constitution, then you are nearer
the living curve of a nation’s growth.

We live in a haunted age. I do not know how many hon.
Members have that sense and that feeling of ghosts and
apparitions surrounding us, ideas, passions, hatred, violence,
preparations for war, many things which you cannot grip
but which are, nevertheless, dangerous. We live in an age in
which vast numbers of people in various countries are
frustrated, because they see no light, because they see before
them the danger of a future war and the break-up of the

524

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

world. Hon. Members tell me that this Constitution has been
in existence for fourteen months. Can any Member tell me
what the fate of the world will be in another fourteen
months? I cannot. As a matter of fact, nobody can, except
that it will be very different from what it is today. And, that
is a big thing to say. In regard to this country, too, I venture
to say that another fourteen months will see many changes —
and big changes, too. Whether they will be for good or for
evil, I do not know. As Mr Gokhale said, you cannot enchain
the growth of a country; and if you think you can do so with
words and phrases, you are quite wrong.

These amendments that we have placed before you are
an attempt to achieve a balance between stability and flexi-
bility, between idealism and realism, between the conditions
in the country as we see them today and the dangers that may
confront us. We have, at the same time, tried to remain faith-
ful to the entire spirit of the Constitution, the spirit which
ensures us freedom, the freedom of the press and various
other freedoms.

Some people seem to think that the object of these
amendments is somehow connected with the coming
elections. I confess that when I first heard this — it might have
been a legitimate inference for some people — it came as a
great surprise to me, because the idea had not struck me at
all. In fact, may I confess that I do not get excited about
the elections at all? I have never been excited about the
elections. The coming elections, which are going to be
colossal, are not likely to excite me either. But if the House or
the country does not trust our bona fides, then no word of
mine will help. I can assure the House, however, that none
of us, to my knowledge, has the least notion that this had
anything to do with the elections as such.

The fact that elections are soon to be held may create a
situation in the country which will be dangerous from the
point of view of security. And if I or anybody who is respon-
sible for the security of the country thinks that he can deal
with it in a particular way, then it is his duty to come to this
House and say so. At a time when the country has to be saved
from going to pieces, it would hardly be relevant to discuss

EQUALITY AND THE BACKWARD CLASSES

525

what the particular phraseology of the Constitution should be.

If such a contingency arises, no word will be allowed to
come in the way. Have you forgotten what happened three
.and a half years ago, in this city of Delhi, in the Punjab, in
the entire body of Western Pakistan? This Constitution was
not there then. Where was freedom at that time? Not
constitutional freedom but the freedom of normal human
impulses. Do you think any constitution will prevent me from
dealing with such a situation? Certainly not, because if it
does, the country will go to pieces and the Constitution with
it. I want to be perfectly fair to this House and to the country
in declaring that, if I am responsible and the Government is
responsible, anything that goes to disrupt the community,
anything that creates communal discord in thir country will
be put down with a heavy hand. There has been enough of
loose talk about this. It is for this country and for this House
to have or not to have this Government. But these are the
terms on which the Government can agree to remain.

The press has said a great deal about its liberty. I know
something of the press because I have been connected with
it in some ways. Therefore, I cannot understand the appre-
hensions of the press. Yet, I must say it has been unfair to
this Government in what it has said. The press, if it wants
freedom — which it ought to have — must also have some
balance of mind which it seldom possesses. One cannot have
it both ways.

Every freedom in this world is limited, limited not so
much by law as by circumstances. We do not wish to come in
the way of the freedom of the press. Personally, I am
convinced of the importance of the freedom of the press. I
have said this previously. I believe a pamphlet containing a
speech of mine delivered some time ago has been circulated
and I repeat that I stand by every word of what I have said
about the freedom of the press. I hope that, in so far as I can,
I shall be able to help in maintaining that freedom. But I
care a little more for the freedom of India and I am not
going to allow anything to come in the way of the freedom
and unity of India. I do not, of course, mean to say that the
freedom of the press comes in the way of the freedom of India.

526 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

Not that. But we have to look at things in their proper
perspective and not behave as though we were in a court of
law, arguing this or that case. We are legislators sitting in
Parliament with the fate of this nation in our hands, possibly,
to some extent, the fate of other nations also. It is a difficult
and highly responsible position and we cannot afford to be
moved by passion or prejudice or by a chain of thought
which has no relation to reality.

Therefore, we have to consider these matters in all
seriousness, remembering always that certain freedoms have
to be preserved. It is dangerous to weaken them even in the
flush of excitement. At the same time, while we want
freedom, freedom of the press or freedom of speech or freedom
of anything, we have to remember that the nation must
remain free, the individual must be free and the country
must be free. If national freedom is imperilled or individual
freedom is imperilled, what good are other freedoms?
Because, then, the very basis of freedom is gone. So all these
things must be weighed. Perhaps, the balance we suggest is
not a correct balance. But it is no good saying vaguely that
freedom has been attacked and weakened.

The House will remember — a fact that has been
repeatedly stated — that this amendment is an enabling one,
it is not a law. Had a law been before the House, each word
of it would have been considered very carefully. Naturally,
when you give an enabling power, it is given in slightly wider
terms. Let us take ‘friendly relations with foreign States’; it
would be difficult to say what would amount to a danger to
friendly relations. You may specify and say that “defamatory
attacks on the heads of foreign nations or others” will be a
danger to friendly relations with foreign governments. Once
you have made sure that the attack you are going to make is
not unreasonable, it is best that you use gentle language.
Anyhow, during the last three years or so, I am not aware —
I may be wrong — that any action has been taken anywhere
in regard to the criticism of foreign countries or foreign
policy. So far as I am concerned and so long as I have any-
thing to do with it, I can assure you that you can criticize
to your heart’s content the foreign policy that my Government

EQUALITY AND THE BACKWARD CLASSES 527

pursues or the policy of any country; but if you do something
which seems to us to be an incitement to war, do you think
we ought to remain quiet and simply wait for the war to
come? I am sure no country would do that.

We cannot imperil the safety of the whole nation in the
name of some fancied freedom which puts an end to all
freedom. Therefore, we should naturally like to avoid what
might be called defamatory attacks against leading foreign
personalities. You can criticize as much as you like either our
policy or any other country’s policy but you must always keep
in mind that the affairs of the world are in a very delicate
state and words, whether oral or written, count; 1’iey make a
difference for good or for evil. A word said out of place may
create a grave situation, as it often does. In fact, it would be a
good thing, I think, if most statesmen dealing with foreign
affairs became quiet for a few months. It would be a still
better thing if newspapers became quiet for a few months,
too. It would be best of all if everybody was quiet for a few
months. However, these are pious aspirations which I fear
will not be accepted or acted up to; but we live in dangerous
times and I wish the House to consider them in dealing with
Article 19(2). In the Select Committee, we examined it in
a variety of ways. You will remember that the word “reason-
able” was not there at first. We tried to redraft it completely,
more on the lines of the words in Article 2 of the Constitution.
In the present form of words, there is no mention of
‘restrictions’. So, we thought that we had better proceed on
that line and then we tried naturally to limit the various
subjects mentioned here — I should be quite frank with you —
for instance in regard to friendly relations with foreign
Powers, we sought to put in the words “defamatory attacks
on heads of foreign States” plus such other attacks which
might impair the friendly relations with foreign States. Now,
that is obviously limited and that is all that one wants and
so we went on limiting the other subjects. We produced a
new draft at that time. Then we looked at it and we found
that while some people liked this part of the draft better,
some preferred the other; but nobody seemed to like the
whole thing as it was and so we thought: Let us go back to

528

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195.1

our old draft but with a very major change, that is, with the
addition of the word “reasonable” which really, immediately
and explicitly limits ever) thing that you do and put it to the
Courts to determine whether it is reasonable or not. It is a
big addition. As I said, it is not the Courts we are afraid of.
. There are courts of eminent judges but what really frightens
me a little is the tremendous volume and bulk of litigation
that this kind of thing encourages.

There is one more thing. My colleague, Srimati
Durgabai, has put in a note in which she has argued that
these changes should be made by Parliament and not by the
States. I am wholly in sympathy with her desire but my mind
is not quite clear about the legal aspects of the matter. I think
it would be a very good thing if lawyers assured me that there
are no difficulties in the way. Then again, another member of
the Select Committee has suggested that the President can
certify the bills after they have been passed by the State Legis-
latures. That is a suggestion which we can consider. These are
not matters of basic principles, because we want two things:
some power to deal with a critical situation if and when it
should arise; and checks so that this power may not be
misused. We want both. It is impossible to do these things
perfectly; one has to find a middle way and trusc to luck that
the people who exercise tbit power will be sensible, reason-
able and wise. As a matter of fact, the Governments, whether
at the Centre or in the States, have today a great deal of
power. If they misuse it, they can do a lot of mischief in a
hundred ways. Ultimately, the check consists in the fall of the
Government and the liquidation of parliamentary democracy
in the country. The only thing that can act as a real check is
for us to choose people who are likely to behave in a
reasonable and wise way.

I need not draw your attention to the fact that not only
has the word “reasonable” been taken out of Article 19 but
two or three lines , have gone out, too. This, I think, has
improved the Article greatly, made it more concise and
brought the whole scope of the Article within the word
"reasonable”.

Then I come to Article 31. Here some minor changes

EQUALITY AND THE BACKWARD CLASSES

529

have been made. I need not go far into them; but there is one
thing which I should particularly like to say* Some hon.
Members, I believe, have given notice of amendments to add
other laws to the Ninth Schedule. I would beg of them not to
press this matter. It is not with any great satisfaction or plea-
sure that we have produced this long Schedule. Nor do we
wish to add to it and that for two reasons. One is that the
Schedule consists only of a particular type of legislation
generally speaking and no other type should come in. Secondly,
every single measure included in it was carefully considered by
our President and certified by him, every measure except the
last one, I think. And that last one was independent !\ examin-
ed by us quite comprehensively. It has gone througn a process
of examination, analysis and scrutiny and we are responsible
for it. If you go on adding at the last moment, ’ is not fair,
in my opinion, either to this Parliament or to the country.

Article 31 refers principally to the abolition of the
zamindari system, which has been a basic programme of the
country for a long time. I am not speaking at the moment
from any partisan or party point of view — although the
matter is important enough in the sense that, if we are pledged
to something, we should give effect to it — but from larger
considerations. I would beg the House to consider that the
basic problem in Asia today is the agrarian problem. Quite
apart from its intimate relationship with the food problem,
if we delay in giving effect to it, as we have done, we shall
get entangled in all manner of difficulties from which we
might not be able to extricate ourselves.

I should like to say that in regard to this matter there has
been a fair amount of litigation. In fact, it is due to litigation
that some of these difficulties have arisen. I cannot blame the
people for going to law courts to get such protection as they
think they can get. I am not blaming the zamindars for doing
so. They have every right to do so and profit by it. But I
would like to put it to them and to others that their security
ultimately lies in a stable economic system and not in the law
courts or in anything else. If there is no peace between them
and the vast agrarian population, they have no security.
That system cannot continue: it does not matter what your

530

JAWAHAKLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

Fundamental Rights might say,* what your Constitution
might say or what your courts might say. If you refuse to see
beyond these you will arrive at a revolutionary situation
which will ignore all these things. We have to consider the
reality and re-adjust ourselves, put an end to the big
zamindari system, reform our land system, make it progres-
sive and modernize it, keeping at the same time the old ways
also and not uprooting the community from its ways.

Now, a balance has to be created. In creating that
balance, recourse to the law courts for redress will be of little
avail. If this amendment is passed, the State Governments
concerned will have a certain power to go ahead with the
laws that they have already passed. If I may, I would advise
them to exercise that power with moderation and wisdom
and to examine with sympathy the hard cases that come to
them. We shall help them in examining them and dealing
with them. They should, if necessary, amend their laws here
and there so as to deal with these hard cases. I am sure,
nobody wants to do injustice or cause hardship. But the fact
remains that when you change a social system or an agrarian
system, the burden must fall on somebody. It is clear that
you cannot always distribute your resources equally; and
yet, if there is unequal distribution, the underlying social
problem remains unsolved. Therefore, I would like the
State Governments to look at the problem from this point of
view also. I should like the representatives of the zamitidars
to look upon it from the correct point of view and not to try
and profit by long litigation. They will not, I can assure them.
They may gain a point here and there. The only parties to
profit will be the lawyers. An hon. Member said that it was
the judicial system that was responsible and not any
individual member of the system. I know that; I am not
blaming anybody; it is always the system that is responsible
or sometimes the lack of a system.

Sir, I beg to place this report of the Select Committee
before the House for a favourable consideration. I can assure
the House t hat we sh all listen to anything that is said here
with respect and attention. I need hardly say that during the
last two or three weeks, since we began considering this

EQUALITY AND THE BACKWARD CLASSES

5S1

matter, we have given an enormous amount of thought and
energy to it in a concentrated way. Although it has been here
only for three weeks or so, we have, perhaps, compressed
the work of months into it. What we have put forward has
been carefully thought out and discussed. Naturally, if we see
any valid reason for changing a word or a phrase here and
there, we shall only be too glad to consider it.

MISCELLANEOUS

TO OUR SERVICES

A Jf en and Women of the Services :

I am glad of this opportunity to address you. During the
last three years I have met many of you, both in the Civil and
Defence Services of this country. I have addressed you,
discussed many matters with you and worked in close
collaboration with some of you. If I had my way, I would,
have liked to meet many more of you so that we might know
each other better; for we are workers in a common cause and
much depends on the degree of our mutual understanding.

Many have praised you greatly and many have sometimes
unfairly criticized you with vehemence. That was natural
in the circumstances and it is possible to find, in most of us,
room for praise and room for criticism. Most of you have
had to adapt yourselves to a new environment and to new
conditions of work within a short period of time. I want to
tell you that in the three years I have known you I have found
you, as a whole, loyal servants of the country. I have appre-
ciated the way you have adapted yourselves to new conditions.
Most of you have had to work much harder than before
because the situation demanded hard work; you have applied
yourselves to this work with goodwill and a desire to serve
this country of ours, which has at last achieved its freedom.

Those of you who are in the Defence Services have had to
face trials and tribulations and have stood a hard test success-
fully. You have thereby gained the praise of your country-
men; you have gained something even more and that is self-
confidence and faith in yourselves and in your cause. Not only
the men of the Defence Services but all of us, whatever the
capacity we have laboured in, have stood the test of our faith
and capacity during this early period of our freedom.

Broadcast from All India Radio, Delhi, December 7, 1949

TO OUR SERVICES

5SS

Just at the moment when all our Services as well as much
else in the country had been split up and everything was in a
state of disorganization, disaster descended upon us all,
bringing not only death and suffering to innumerable human
beings but also a travail of the spirit to all of us. While facing
that and overcoming it, we set about rebuilding the structure
that had been partly shattered. Let us not praise ourselves
for what we did, for so much remains undone. But let us
at least recognize our achievements, for they are not
inconsiderable.

It is difficult for all of us to adapt ourselves t"> changing
conditions; and even when we do so physically the mind lags
behind. It must have been difficult for you. who are
accustomed to the routine and method of a diffrent set-up,
to adapt yourselves to a new heaving and seething democracy.
It is just as difficult for others to develop the discipline
that freedom demands. This process must inevitably take
time; yet you have succeeded in a large measure.

Every thinking person knows that the running of a
modern government requires the machinery of highly
organized, efficient and loyal Services. No government can
function effectively without them. It was important that our
Services, even though faced with new tasks and new objectives,
should be loyal and efficient, breathe the new air of
democracy and function in tune with the new set-up. I think
the success we have had in this is satisfactory. But the ultimate
test lies in the results we achieve. The only test is the advance-
ment and well-being of the people we serve and — especially
in a democracy — their goodwill. In hard times, goodwill
may not be easily forthcoming. But loyal and efficient work
in a great cause, even though it may not be immediately
recognized, ultimately bears fruit.

You serve the nation in a variety of ways and in many
capacities. Some have the responsibility of high office, others
work in humbler ways; some are generals, others are ordinary
soldiers in the army. In the Services, as elsewhere, discipline
has to be observed and greater experience and capacity
placed in a special position of authority. But whatever our
rank or grade, we must always remember that we are

35— II DPD/65

534

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

comrades working for the same end and respect one another
as comrades should do. We live in a society which has
inherited great distinctions between the high and the low,
the rich and the poor. We cannot change that suddenly; we
make efforts to level these differences and to see that opportu-
nity for progress comes to all. In all our dealings we friust
remember our objectives and recognize the dignity of the
individual and the worth of labour. Those who do not labour
for the good of the community and only consume the labour
of others are a burden and deserve no encouragement.

Ours is a poor country but it has tremendous resources
and potentialities. We naturally want to develop these
resources and get rid of the curse of poverty and unemploy-
ment. Many of our superior Services were built up in the
tradition of countries that were much richer. This created a
barrier between these Services and the common man. We
have to break down that barrier and gradually to adopt
ways more in conformity with conditions prevailing in our
country. The Civil and Defence Services of a country must
have proper conditions to work in assurance and security.
The labourer is worthy of his hire. A service can only be
efficient if its employees are contented and have an objective
to work for. We have tried to provide security and see that
contentment can only come from the goodwill of the people
whom we serve and who are the ultimate arbiters of our
destiny.

We are passing through a period of economic difficulty
and it is necessary that all of us, whatever our station or
degree, should share according to our capacity the burden of
the day. I am glad that the Services have recognized this
and in many cases have offered, of their own accord, to share
the burden. There have been cuts in their salaries and
compulsory saving schemes have been introduced. I know
that this has hit many of them — more especially our younger
officers — rather hard and that it will mean the tightening of
many a belt. Yet it is right that it should be so. I am sure
that every one of you would like to share this burden with
others and would not care to stand apart. The very knowledge
that we are doing our bit along with innumerable others

TO OUR SERVICES

595

brings with it a community of feeling and a. sense of satisfac-
tion. It produces a bond among a people in a common
endeavour and produces that strength in a nation before
which all obstacles fade away. We work not only for today
but much more for tomorrow. We build for the future. It
does not matter if today brings a little hardship, provided
tomorrow is going to be better for our people.

Our Services have to set an example, not only of efficient
-service but also of high integrity and complete freedom
from communal, provincial or other bias. There are many
disruptive and anti-social forces in this country an-1 it is often
said that the moral fibre of the nation is not what it was.
Evil stalks the land in the shape of narrow a mmunalism
and opportunism; black-markets and the like h ive poisoned
our trade and business to a large extent. It is for the Services
to fight these evils and they can do so only if they are men
and women of character, integrity and selflessness. We have
to fight evil wherever we find it. We cannot afford to succumb
to it or to be passive and inert spectators of it.

Many years ago I read in the writings of George Bernard
Shaw something that moved me and found an answering echo
in my mind and heart. He wrote: "This is the true joy in life,
the being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a
mighty one; the being thoroughly worn out before you are
thrown on the scrap "heap; the being a force of Nature instead
of a feverish selfish little clod of ailments and grievances,
complaining that the world will not devote itself to making
you happy.”

Not many of us can rise to such heights but it sometimes
happens that a whole nation, under some great leader or a
mighty urge, raises itself, moulds events and makes the
history of its choice. This is what happened when Mahatma
Gandhi burst upon the consciousness of India and moved
her people to great deeds by the magic of his personality
and his message. The Father of the Nation is no longer with
us but we still have his message and something of the spark
that he lighted within us. The great work that he started is
half finished and we have to go ahead without much rest or
respite to complete it. In that historic mission we are all

536

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

comrades and, as soldiers of India, we shall march together
and complete the task.

THE MODERN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE

F riends, two years ago, I am reminded, I came over to
attend and inaugurate another meeting of this kind. I have
not the least recollection of what I said on that occasion. I
am sure that on that occasion we must have uttered many
plantitudes as we always do on such occasions. I have no
doubt also that we meant them seriously and that most of
us, if not all, tried our best to give effect to such policies and
programmes as we had decided on. But the fact remains
that while we make progress in various directions, somehow
the over-all view is very very far from satisfactory. I am noc
for the moment talking about the activities of Health
Ministers but of the general activities which go to promote
public good. Whether it has been our fault or the fault of
circumstances beyond our control, I do not know. Normally
speaking, of course, we are not right or justified in blaming
the stars for what are our own failings.

We are judged by results. A commander in the field of
battle is judged by his victory of defeat in the field and the
longest and most eloquently written report of his failure will
not exonerate him. Historians may later consider on whom
to lay the responsibility for the success or the failure but the
fact remains that the battle has either been won or lost.
Therefore, the only real test of any report you may write or
I may write is victory or what we have achieved. There is
also another thing to be considered which is almost as
important as what we have achieved; and that is what people
think we have achieved. That is important, not merely
from the publicity or propaganda point of view but because

Inaugural address at the Health Ministers’ Conference, New Delhi, August 31,

1950

THE MODERN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE

5S7

when you have to undertake vast social schemes it is highly
important what people think o£ them.

You cannot attain success without the people’s
co-operation; you cannot attain success without raising the
morale of the people for the task. If the people think that
the country is going ahead, their morale goes up and thereby
their capacity to work increases. If the people think that we
are where we were or worse, their morale goes down, their
desire to help goes down, their capacity to work goes down
and this affects you and me and everybody else and all our
work suffers. Now, of course, there are many kinds of work,
very important work, which do not show immediate results
and there are many kinds of research which the public are
not in a position to judge. In fact, the public may even be
rather amused or critical about research and yt . such work is
highly important and every country must carry it on so that
it may yield results in the future.

Nevertheless, the important thing is that results are
achieved in the present and that they arc appreciated. That
is to say, the results must have a social bearing. It is not
much good from the public point of view if some laboratory
could do something which is odd and unique. Of course, it
may have some bearing on the future but generally speaking
this question must be looked upon — whether it concerns
health or something else — from the general point of view of
the social well-being and advancement of the people as
a whole. I should like to lay stress on that. As you know,
more and more stress is laid on this aspect all over the world.
In fact, the whole science of medicine, which some hundreds
of years ago was largely concerned with what might be
called individual treatment, has undergone a change of
outlook. Of course, the aspect of individual treatment is still
there but that is now a very minor aspect of the problem and
certainly from the State’s point of view it is infinitely less
significant than the other important aspects, namely, general
public health, sanitation, hygiene, etc. The whole concep-
tion of health and medical treatment has changed in the
last few generations, and because the conception has changed,
because people now look more to public health and not so

558

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

much to the private health of individuals, there has taken
place a tremendous improvement not only in public but also
in private health.

Now, public health is, 1 repeat, something that is obvious
and probably somewhat trite; nevertheless, trite things must
be repeated again and again. Public health depends far
more on factors other than just drugs and medicines. It
depends primarily, 1 should say, on the sufficiency of food.
What is the good of your trying to treat a man who is starved
or who is under-nourished? He is weak, he cannot resist
disease. Public health depends next on decent living condi-
tions, such as housing. Next to food, housing seems to be far
more important — from the point of view of public health
— than all the medicines in the world. This accounts for the
fundamental idea of changing the environment, of providing
environmental hygiene. Not only are its effects physical but
they also affect the mind tremendously.

So, from the point of view of health you branch olf into
subjects which are not directly concerned with you at all and
yet which fundamentally affect you, such as the question of
food and housing. Of course, there are other things, too.
You might speak of education but leave this for the present.
I would like to lay stress on food and housing. We have
been talking a great deal about food. In the last two months
or so, to our great misfortune, we have had to face great
calamities. If we had met three months ago and if I had
then referred to the food situation of the whole of India, I
would have struck a hopeful note. I might have said that in
spite of difficulties we have turned the corner and I would
have been right in saying it. It would not have been wishful
thinking. And I think that the good that we have done in
regard to the Grow More Food and other schemes is, in spite
of a great deal of waste, a basic and substantial good which
will endure and which will pay us dividends in the years
to come.

And yet, today we have to face a difficult situation for a
variety of reasons, the chief of them being the failure of rains
in many parts of the country and tremendous floods in other
parts — the failure of rains in Madras and floods in Kathiawar,

THE MODERN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE

539

Orissa, Bihar and U.P. There has been an amazing succession
of unfortunate calamities. On top of these comes the tremen-
dous earthquake in Assam which is of a colossal character,
bigger than any earthquakes we have known. We do not yet
know what the exact damage is. The fact that the area
affected in Upper Assam is relatively thinly populated and
is not a developed area is the reason why the loss of human
life and property has not been as great as it might have been
in a more populated region: even so, it is heavy. And, apart
from the actual damage, we have, today, to face the problem
of the changing courses of rivers and of marooned people.
Hills have disappeared and the whole face of 1 T pper Assam
has changed. All these ravages have been a uiai for us as a
nation; few catastrophes — not even a war -could have
put a country on trial in this way. 1 herefoi :, we have to
realize in all its fullness the extreme gravity of the situation
and of not one problem but all the problems that face us.
We must have a sense of urgency in dealing with them. If
I may say so, I have, for the moment, lost interest in distant
schemes as one has to lose in the face of grave urgency.

Let us take the housing problem which is not quite as
urgent as the food problem but which is, nevertheless, of
extreme importance. We were discussing it in the Planning
Commission the other day and the result of that discussion
was a realization of the overwhelming character of the
problem. The problem, of course, was bad enough, say ten
years ago — very bad, indeed. The living conditions of
workers, peasants and others were bad and they grew
progressively worse during the war. Then the partition came
and with it came the problem of refugees and displaced
persons; and all that has happened since has created a
stupendous and overwhelming problem. And yet, what
exactly are you going to do about it in your education and
health conferences if one is condemned to live in the gutter?
What is the good of your talking of health and education
without housing, which is the basic thing? A man must have
fair, sanitary living conditions, if not luxuries. You go to the
cities like Bombay or Calcutta. It makes one despair to see
the conditions in which people live there.

540

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1955

I have laid stress on two matters: food and housing, which
I consider basic for health. These are not normally within your
purview and probably your Conference will not consider them.

1 just referred to the gradual change-over during the last
few generations from the idea of individual treatment for
diseases to the idea of public health. From the Government’s
point of view, this idea is very important. It is gradually
spreading more and more and social systems of medicine and
treatment are being adopted which are not unlike what is
being done in England,' for instance. In such systems, the
State comes in and takes charge practically of the whole
population. In the end, this is not only good in itself but
probably cheaper: that is to say, cheaper not in terms of
rupees, annas and pies but in terms of the general health of
the nation, its productive capacity and the mental and
physical well-being of the individual and the nation. The
money you spend upon it is very well worth while. We must
progress in this direction. All these things cost money and
money is just the thing that we lack; and yet while we lack
money and while that' is a great drawback in the ultimate
analysis, I do not think that it is money alone that comes
in the way.

Money does come in the way and delays matters. But, in
my opinion, it is the human factor that counts more. Even
if we have all the money in the world, we obviously cannot
raise our standard to the standard, say, of America in a short
time. We just cannot do it all of a.sudden. It takes time. And
we have to take things as they are; and taking things as
they are I should welcome money; but for the moment
there are things which are infinitely more important than
money and I go back again to the human factor, the morale
of the individual and his capacity to have some objective in
view which he can look forward to and work for. If you have
that in the people, progress will be far more rapid than if
you do not and even have all the money in the world. I
want you to remember this. In the modern world, money is
undoubtedly important but infinitely more important is the
human factor. Money minus the human factor will not go
very far but human factor minus the money will take you

THE MODERN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE

541

some distance, though, perhaps, not very far. Therefore,
we must always think of the human factor, of getting public
co-operation and public understanding in the things that
we do. It is, perhaps, not the expert’s job. I realize that. I
cannot expect each one of you to go into these things and
approach the public and convert them or make them
understand. It is difficult but I am merely putting to you a
certain governmental point of view, because I should like
public servants to approach this and other problems in this
manner. Experts as you are, if you keep that viewpoint before
you, I think it will help you and it will help others, too.

I find from your agenda that you are going to consider
reports of the Indigenous Systems of Medicine Committee,
the Homoeopathic Enquiry Committee, etc. I understand
that our Health Minister is going to addres you on this
subject. I have an inkling of her views as she has expressed
them to me on several occasions and she feels strongly on
this subject. First of all, we have to he clear in our minds
about one thing, namely, the bearing of this question on
public health which the Government has to consider as being
more important than the aspect of individual treatment.
In so far as public health, sanitation and the prevention of
diseases are concerned — I speak subject to correction — I do
not know that much attention has been paid to them by the
older systems of medicine. From that point of view, there is
a vacuum or something near a vacuum. If you want to
consider anything from the aspect of public health, you have
to adopt what is called the modern method. Now, what
does this word ‘modern’ mean? A thing that is modern is not
necessarily good because it is modern; and a thing that is
old is not necessarily bad because it is old. The converse is
also true. A thing that is old is not necessarily good because
it is old; and a thing is not necessarily bad because it is
modern. Now, if you look back to the development of science
and the applications of science — and the development of the
science of medicine in particular — it is a very interesting
history. In early days there were various theories in the
domain of physics, chemistry, medicine, etc., in India, in
Arabia, in Europe, in Greece and in Rome. Gradually, step

542 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

by step, old theories changed as more experience was gathered
and new methods were adopted. There were also new
methods of understanding, of approach and ultimately of
treatment, too. Each successive step that you take is built
on an older experience. If you agree, then you will also agree
that every achievement becomes outdated sooner or later.
If you attain perfection, then, of course, there is no question
of building further. I do not know if it is possible to say of
any activity in human affairs that it is perfect. If a human
being becomes perfect, that human being, if I may say so
without disrespect, at once attains nirvana and is out of our
sphere of activity. It is only imperfect people who function
in this world. Perfection means a complete solution, a
complete balance of everything and becoming part of some
other sphere.

It is absurd for us to say that any system, any thought or
any line of activity has attained perfection. It would be
equally wrong for us to say that any system of medicine, at
any time in history — including the present time — has been
anywhere near perfection. What Dr Jivraj Mehta or any
other eminent doctor would advise his patients to do today,
he might not ten years later on account of new developments.
You may strongly recommend something today; but if
something new happens you will revise your opinion. That is
the way of advance — having an opinion, accepting all the
experience that lies behind you and adding fresh experience
and knowledge to it.

I say this, because it is obvious that the old systems of
medicine in India, the Ayurvedic and Unani systems, have
been great systems. There is no doubt about that. In their
day, they exercised considerable influence not only in our
but also in far-away countries. Harun A1 Rashid sent for
Indian physicians to cure him. Our systems spread to Arabia
and to Europe and influenced the systems of medicine there.
From this very creditable record, however, it does not
follow that our past system was the summum bonum; nor
does it follow that you should ignore it and put it aside as
worthless.

What then should our approach be? Obviously, our

THE MODERN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE

543

approach should be one of try ing to profit by past experience
and integrating it with the best in other systems. One
approach I would, for want of a better word, call the ‘scientific
approach,’ the approach of a knowing mind, an experiment-
ing mind, which is prepared to accept anything that factually
or theoretically justifies itself and which goes ahead on the
• basis of it. When something else takes its place as an improve-
ment, the scientific mind accepts that. In theory at least
what is called modern medicine is based on the scientific
approach. I am not prepared to admit that every practitioner
of modern medicine has the scientific approach. I think many
of them are very far from scientific in their oitlook and in
their work. But a scientific approach is essential in whatever
domain of life you are functioning. If you do not have that
approach, you lose yourself, flounder and cannot make any
progress at all.

I dislike, 1 may tell you, calling the modern system of
medicine ‘Western’ medicine. I think it is a wrong thing to
do so, because it is as much Eastern as it is Western. It has
grown out of what wc have done here and what the Arabs
and the Greeks have done in their countries. So, to call it
‘Western’ is just to give credit to others and not to take credit
for something that we ourselves did. It is like people calling
the modern system of numbers ‘Arabic.’ As a matter of fact,
in Arabia they are called Indian figures. The invention of
the zero and the decimal system two thousand years ago is
one of the most amazing instances of the Indian genius. It is
one of the greatest inventions of all time and to call it ‘Western’
or ‘Arabic’ seems to be absurd and wrong. So also to call the
modern system of medicine ‘Western’ is completely wro ng .
Certainly, the West had a great share and a dominant share
in its development in the recent past. But the whole thing is
based on generations of experience in India, Arabia and
other countries. It is this concentrated experience that is
known as modern medicine.

There is no doubt at all that the Ayurvedic and the Unani
systems have excellent remedies. There should be no difficulty
whatever in integrating all their old and tried remedies with
any other system. It is fairly easy and, in fact, many of them

544

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

have been integrated in this way. The difficulty is really more
basic and fundamental. That again takes me back to the
scientific approach.

I believe that an Ayurvedic physician thinks and talks in
terms — you will forgive me if I am wrong — of vayu, kaph and
pith. I am no scientist and I do not wish to go into this matter
but undoubtedly that basic line of reasoning is opposed to
what might be called the basic line of reasoning in modern
science. Mind you, this idea of vayu, kaph and pith is very
similar to those that prevailed in Europe. It is not a speciality
of India. Maybe these ideas originated from India but this
kind of approach was prevalent everywhere in the Middle
Ages. From experience and by experiments, different
approaches, which seemed to fit in more with the realities of
the case, gradually evolved. So, we have to decide very
clearly whether our approach is going to be that of vayu,
kaph and pith or some other.

Many people in India practise some kind of medical
system whether it is homoeopathy, electro-homoeopathy or
whatever they may like to call it. There may be nothing
against these people: they may be very good people but the
trouble is that anybody can put up a board and practise
medicine without any knowledge of medicine or even of that
particular type of medicine. That is an extraordinary and
dangerous thing which we should forbid. There must be
certain standards which people must reach before they can
experiment with human life.

The conclusion I arrive at is this. First of all, the modern
system of medicine deals with many aspects of public and
private health and surgery, which are practised by other
systems, too; and we have to keep them. Secondly, the
approach to any system must be on scientific lines. Our
approach must be as friendly as possible, as respectful as
possible but also as critical as possible. We should imbibe
and accept all knowledge that we have in medicine and
profit by it. As far as the basic approach is concerned, I
cannot see how we can combine the two approaches, the
modern treatment of disease and the older one which pre-
vailed in the Middle Ages in Europe, in Asia and in India

THE BUILDER OF NEW INDIA

545

and which is, to some extent, represented by Ayurveda and
Unani, that is, the vayu, pith and kaph approach. I do not
wish to come in their way but I would insist that adequate
training in modern medicine should be given to every
medical practitioner. I do not mind what system he practises
.after he has received that training. I should like both the
Ayurvedic practitioner and the Unani practitioner to have
this training. Let him practise his own system. But if he has
the modern training and is prepared to abide bv that train-
ing, he will function more or less rightly. That would apply
to homoeopathy also. Indeed, where the homoeopaths
and the like are concerned, by and large their training is more
or less the same. So, the basic training in modern method
should be common to all. For people to say that a certain
system is cheaper than the other serves no purpose, for after
all, the cheapest thing is to give treatment to a patient at no
cost whatever.

The modern system of treatment. I believe, lays great
stress not only on preventive health measures but also on
more natural treatment, though drugs have no doubt become
popular. But the trend is obvious. Fortunately, although I
have good friends among doctors, they have not experimented
on me too much — either the practitioners of modern medicine
or Ayurveda or Unani hakims or Homoeopaths or anybody.
And I believe that the less of medicine and drugs that one
takes the better for the individual but, of course, I cannot
rule it out entirely. There must be occasions when one has
to take them. But there it is. We must lay greater stress on
the prevention of disease and on the general raising of public
standards of health than on individual treatment.

THE BUILDER OF NEW INDIA

I have to convey to you, Sir, and to the House, mournful
news. A little over an hour ago, at 9.37 a.m., the Deputy

Statement in Parliament, New Delhi, December 15, 1950

540

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

Prime Minister, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, passed away in
Bombay City. Three days ago, many of us saw him off at the
Willingdon airfield and we hoped that his stay in Bombay
would enable him to get back his health which had been so
grievously shattered b> hard work and continuous worry.
For a day or two, he seemed to improve but early this
morning he had a relapse and the story of his great life
ended.

It is a great sorrow for us and for the whole country;
history will record many things about him in its pages and
call him the Builder and Consolidator of New India. But,
perhaps, to many of us here he will be remembered as a great
captain of our forces in the struggle for freedom, as one who
gave us sound advice in times of trouble as well as in moments
of victory, as a friend and colleague on whom one could
invariably rely and as a tower of strength that revived waver-
ing hearts. We shall remember him as a friend and a colleague
and a comrade above all and I, who have sat here on this
bench side by side with him for these several years, will feel
rather forlorn and a certain emptiness will steal upon me
when I look at this empty bench.

I can say little more on this occasion. My colleague,
Mr Rajagopalachari, and I are going almost immediately
to pay our last tribute and homage to him in Bombay. I
understand that the President has also decided to go to
Bombay immediately and the Speaker, Sir, went early this
morning. I have no doubt that many of my colleagues and
hon. Members of this House would also have liked to go on
this occasion to pay their last tribute but I feel that he,
magnificent worker that he was, would not have liked us to
leave our work and just go in large numbers to Bombay at
this moment. So, I have asked my colleagues to stay here all
except Mr Rajagopalachari who is perhaps amongst all of
us here the oldest of Sardar Patel’s colleagues and comrades.
And it is right that he should go and it is right that another
old colleague of his, the President, should also go. For the rest,
it is up to us to carry on the work here and elsewhere, for the
work of the country never stops and never should stop. And
so, in spite of this grievous sorrow that has come over us, we

A HALF CENTURY ENDS

547

have to steel ourselves to carry on the work in which the
great man, the great friend and colleague who has passed
away, played such a magnificent part.

A HALF CENTURY ENDS

I N a few hours from now, this year will pass away, the half
century will also end. We stand, as it were, on the edge of
the line that divides the first half of the 20th century from
the second. This first half has been full of war* and tumults
and vast changes, political, scientific, cultural, social and
economic. We have seen great revolutions which have
changed the face from what it was during the days of my
early boyhood.

This half century is over. But it has brought no peace to
us nor has it brought promise of future peace and, as we
stand on this New Year’s eve on the sword’s edge of the
present, darkness seems to envelop the future.

I am addressing you after a long interval and much has
happened since I spoke to you last on the radio. Many
calamities have fallen on us, bringing distress to our people.
But the greatest of these calamities and sorrows has been the
passing away from amongst us of a giant among men. Sardar
Vallabhbhai Patel was a dear and valued comrade in the
brave days of our struggle for freedom, full of wisdom and
determination, a rock of patient strength to whom instinc-
tively all of us went for guidance. Later, when we occupied
the seats of Government, inevitably some of the heaviest
burdens fell on him and history will record how he discharged
that duty. He will always be remembered not only as a great
leader in the fight for freedom but also as a great builder,
the unifier and consolidator of New India. It is a proud title
to fame which he well deserved. For him it is well, for his
life’s duty was well performed and is over now. But for us, it
is not well, for we miss strength and wisdom and we can

Broadcast from All India Radio, Delhi, December 31, 1950

548

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1958

no longer go to him for counsel and advice. That burden
which his broad shoulders carried so lightly, has now to be
shared by all of us.

Tomorrow morning as the sun of the New Year rises, I
shall leave Delhi on my way to the West. I shall pay a brief
visit to Bangalore to open the Science Congress there and
then proceed to Bombay and then to England where the
Commonwealth Prime Ministers are going to meet in
conference.

I am leaving India reluctantly, for I want to face our
problems here and to give all my strength and energy for
their solution. I do not wish to escape, even for a while, from
the burden and the responsibility that fate has cast upon me.
But, after full consideration, I decided to attend this
conference in London. Big issues are at stake in the world
today and, indeed, the fate of humanity itself is in the balance.
I do not suggest that the conference in London will decide
any of these issues or will finally avert the grave danger of
war that confronts us. But it is possible that this conference
will help in lessening the gloom somewhat and in showing
a way which might lead to peace. In this grave emergency,
therefore, I have thought it necessary to travel to London
and to take counsel there with others who have also to
shoulder heavy burdens and who are trying to see light in
the prevailing darkness. If we take even a small step in the
right direction, then the conference will have done well.

You know how India has laboured with all earnestness of
purpose in the cause of peace. We have sometimes been mis-
understood by our friends but I think it is widely realized
now that the dominant urge that governs our actions is the
desire to help in the maintenance of peace in this world.
Everybody knows that a large-scale war today will be horrible
beyond words and that its consequences will be appalling.
It may even bring about the ruin- of modern civilization.
The small war that has been going on in Korea has already
devastated that unfortunate country and . brought untold
misery to its people. And yet, people fight, they say, to
bring freedom to the people of Korea.

Peace cannot be purchased by compromise with evil or

A HALF CENTURY ENDS

549

by surrender to it. Nor can peace be maintained by methods
that themselves are the negation of peace. During our long
struggle for freedom, we never surrendered and we did not
compromise at any time with what we considered evil. Yet,
under Gandhiji’s guidance, we tried to follow the methods
of peace and were friendly even to those who tried to crush
lis. He taught us the peaceful, yet unyielding approach; he
taught us how to preserve the temper of peace even in a
struggle.

Today, if we talk of peace, sometimes people mistake it
for appeasement of evil. The temper of peace is completely
absent today and the only alternative to a surrender appears
to many people to be war with all its terrible consequences.
Surely, there are other alternatives which are far removed
from surrender and yet lead to the objective aimed at. It is
in this spirit that we have tried to approach the world’s
problems. We are not pacifists. We keep an army and a navy
and an air force and if danger threatens us we shall use them.
But we seek no dominion over other people. Our sole object
is to be left in peace ourselves to solve our own problems
and, where possible, to help and co-operate with others.
In doing so, we try not to be swept away by passion and
anger but to maintain the temper of peaceful approach. It
is in this spirit and with all humility and prayerfulness that
I have endeavoured to guide India’s policy. I have done so
in the belief that I have the trust and goodwill of my country-
men behind me. That has fortified me and given me strength
even when the outlook was dark.

In our own country there is a multitude of problems. The
first of these is that of food. You know that, during the last
six months, we have met with a series of natural disasters and
calamities unparalleled before. Fate seems to have been most
unkind to us. Perhaps, it wanted to test us to the uttermost.
We will survive that test, for something, of the old courage
and determination is in us still and, whether danger threatens
us from within or without, we shall face it calmly and un-
flinchingly, remembering always the great Master who led
us to freedom.

We are trying to get food from all over the world,

36—11 DPD/63

550

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1955

wherever it may be available. We will make every possible
effort to fight starvation and famine. If we cannot get enough
food from abroad to meet all our needs, then we must spread
out our food deficit all over the country and over all our
people. We cannot tolerate that there should be abundance
in one part and starvation in another. If we spread out this
burden and all of us share it, then we may well pass the
critical period of the next few months. Therefore, let us come
to grips with this problem in all earnestness and determina-
tion. Let there be no waste. Let there be no selfish hoarding.
Let no man shift for himself at the cost of his neighbour. It is
a common peril that faces us and we can only meet it together
as comrades, helping one another and thus lightening one
another’s distress. We have a hard time ahead. We will not
escape it by running away from it or by blaming others or
by futile argument.

Some people suggest that we should get rid of our
commitments by putting an end to food rationing over large
areas. That would be an easy way of escape for the Govern-
ment but it would also be a criminal shirking of the duty and
responsibility that we owe our people. We do not like
rationing and controls and we should like to get rid of them
as soon as possible; but at a time of great scarcity we cannot
afford to see our people starve and to make excuses that we
are not responsible for their starvation. The only way to meet
this is by a common sharing of what we have and a common
lack of what we have not.

Both the international and national situations are a
challenge to us and to our manhood. How are we going to
stand up to this challenge? Not by slogan and resolution,
not by mutual bickering, not by feeling despondent and
helpless but by putting aside our petty conflicts and
differences, by pulling together and pooling our resources
and facing the world as a united nation determined to
overcome all obstacles that come in its way.

As Prime Minister, I am the servant of all our people and
I can make no distinction. But I have another capacity also
which I treasure. I am a Congressman, a member for the
last thirty-eight years of a great organization which fought

A HALF CENTURY ENDS

5S1

a mighty empire and brought freedom to this country.
During this long period of years, in common with
innumerable countrymen of mine, it has been my proud
privilege to work, through the Congress, for the freedom of
India and the welfare of our people. With the coming of
independence, a great responsibility came to all Congress-
men. That responsibility was not merely to occupy the seats
of authority but rather to keep the old flame alive in ourselves
and in our people, to continue to serve to the best of out
capacity and to remember always the lessons that our Master
taught us. How have we discharged that responsibility?
I fear that we cannot claim great success. But this is no time
for us to criticize and find fault with one another. We have
to get back to our old moorings and put an end to all disrup-
tive and fissiparous tendencies in the Congress and in the
country. That was our aim and objective several decades
ago, for which we laboured throughout that period and a
large measure of success came to us. Today, the same call
comes to us and we must listen to it and act in accordance
with it. It means that we seek no power or profit for ourselves
but only endeavour to serve our people, that we seek the
co-operation of all others and avoid everything that weakens
and disrupts. If, remembering the inspiration of our great
Master, we act on these lines, then the fears that fill our
minds and the difficulties that surround us will fade away.

So, on this eve of the New Year and a new half century,
I make an earnest appeal to you, men and women of India.
Let us make this New Year a turning point in our national
life; let us make a fresh start and light again that old flame
in our hearts which warmed us when the struggle was the
fiercest. Let us, above all, come together and co-operate with
one another in the service of India.

Friends and comrades, I ask you for your good wishes
and blessings in this new lap of life’s journey that begins
with the New Year in which we are all fellow-travellers
marching to a common goal.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TOMORROW

M r Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I with your permission
intervene and say a few words in regard to the various
matters that have been discussed? My colleague, the Finance
Minister, who is in charge of this particular Budget, will no
doubt deal with the specific matters that have been raised in
the course of this debate. I need hardly remind the House
of the fact that, although this Budget is the individual respon-
sibility of the Finance Minister, it is also the responsibility
of the entire Government and, as Prime Minister, I am
entirely responsible for it as well as any other member of the
Government. This Budget was placed before the House
after the usual consideration by the Government and the
latter is completely committed to it. That does not mean
that we are not willing to consider any new proposals; we
certainly are, so long as the basic structure of the Budget is
not affected.

My friend, the hon. Prof. Shah, pointed out various
difficulties in the way of a debate here and in the way of a
consideration of the Budget proposals. He pointed out how
little could be done in the allotted time. I am in complete
agreement with him in this matter. If there are any practical
proposals which would enable us to give more time for the
consideration of these problems either formally or informally,
I am quite sure that the Finance Minister will gladly consider
them. The real difficulty is, however, more basic and it is
this: the kind of problems which the Government has to face
now is so vast and intricate that it is impossible for any
democratic Parliamentary Assembly to give enough time for
its consideration. It is just a question of time. This is not a
new difficulty. I remember that long debates on this subject
took place in a country like the United Kingdom, where
they found that they could not get along with what is really
the 19th century procedure in this 20th century of continuous
crises, social problems and international problems. So even
Parliamentary procedure in the United Kingdom has
gradually changed and many matters are left more to the

Speech in Parliament, New Delhi, March 14, 1951

THE IMPORTANCE OF TOMORROW

&5S

Committees than to the House itself. Usually, a principle is
decided by the House and its working out is left to
Committees. The House simply cannot find the time to
consider everything. That is a difficulty inherent in the
situation. If we can find a remedy for it, it will not only be
good for us but, maybe, we will set an example to other
democratically inclined countries who are seeking such
remedies.

In spite of the fact that Parliament is in continuous
session, it is not able to find time to consider in detail all the
important matters that come up. We have, in fact much less
time because we are not in continuous session. I suppose our
sessions will inevitably become longei and longer, so as to
enable us to deal with more and more problems and have
more and more discussions. Anyhow, I have stated what the
difficulty is at present. Though I am in sympathy with what
Prof. Shah said, I have no easy remedy for that difficulty,
except to say that we are perfecdy prepared to consider,
together with the hon. Members of the House, any ideas or
suggestions about how to give greater facilities for more
intensive discussion of any great problem.

An hon. Member referred to the Budget speech as being
directly or indirectly a survey of all manner of problems —
domestic, international, economic, foreign, etc. The House
can hardly expect the Finance Minister’s Budget speech to
be a survey of all these tremendous problems, although they
have, no doubt, some bearing on the Budget. The world is
becoming far too intricate and difficult for us to be able to
keep the full picture in view always.

As I listened to the hon. Member who spoke just now, I
was wondering whether we had the large picture in mind
or were getting lost in a few minor and secondary matters.
For instance, having referred to the Government’s extra-
vagance, the hon. Member went on to say certain things in
regard to our bringing forward a Bill for giving a pension to
the President. That signified to me an approach which I
would call hundred per cent wrong.

Besides, I should have thought that the subject of pension
for the President was hardly a matter for debate or reference

554

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1955

here. I say, even if this country is starving, even then you have
to provide for our President. The hon. Member, Babu
Ramnarayan Singh, perhaps, prefers starvation for the
President and himself. I certainly will not stand in his way.
But we are considering graver matters than this; and the fact
that such points are raised shows that we are not looking at
the grave problems on merits. We do not seem to be thinking
of the vast problem that we are faced with and have to wrestle
with — the vast problem of the country’s economy in relation
to the world’s economy. This is a problem which is
determined, not only by our own decisions but also, to a
large extent, by happenings and events and developments
in the world which are beyond our scope and control.

I propose to say a few words in regard to our general
approach rather than about specific problems. I am sorry to
confess that 1 have not been here throughout the Budget
discussions. I have listened with care to some speeches when
I was here and I have also taken care to read the full reports
of the speeches made when I was absent. I have found a
multitude of criticisms to the effect that the Government is
not functioning efficiently or is not suppressing this evil or
that evil, that there is frustration and so on and so forth.

With a large measure of what was said by my respected
friend and colleague, Acharya Kripalani, I can quite well be
in agreement. Nevertheless, I disagree with many of the
conclusions he arrived at. Of course, it is possible to pick out
many things in the doings of this Government with which
one may not agree. Hon. Members have every right to look
at the present picture of the country critically. If there was
an effective Opposition in this House, undoubtedly it would
be its right, indeed, its function to point out the failings of the
Government and to put forward constructive proposals.
Since there is no effective Opposition, I, for my part, welcome
the criticism of colleagues and hon. Members who, in regard
to policy, are supposed to look more or less in the same
direction as we do. Criticism is useful and desirable in keeping
the Government up to the mark; but one has to see the full
picture, one has to balance things, one has to realize that the
problems we have to face are difficult and intricate ones, for

THE IMPORTANCE OF TOMORROW

555

which we cannot find any easy or magical solution. We have
to compare our problems with those of other countries. We
have to look for the common factor and find out how far our
problems are due to our own failings and how far to world
conditions. There are a hundred aspects to the problem
which we have to consider. If they are to be helpful,
hon. Members must look at every aspect — the good and the
bad — and try to understand the basic problem that faces the
country before they start to find a solution.

In the course of the last few months, the Planning
Commission has been specially charged with considering
these various problems, not the details of administration but
rather the basic problems, including economic problems and
anything that goes towards the building up of a nation’s
economy. The Planning Commission, with which I have the
honour of being associated, has come up. in the course of its
discussions, against many basic difficulties. No doubt, it will
present some kind of a preliminary report to this House in
the course of the next month or two. Then the House will
have an opportunity of considering the problem in its various
aspects. What I wish the House to consider at the moment is
that the kinds of problems we have to face here are, mutatis
mutandis, problems common to many countries in the world
today. Whether you call these countries capitalist or socialist
or communist, the problem is the same: the world has to
face certain difficulties due to certain basic causes. I imagine
there are several ways of solving them. It is not enough for
this House or for this Government to dispose of the solution
of the problem by saying that we shall follow the capitalist
way or the way of private enterprise or the socialist or the
communist way. If you say that, all that you mean is that you
shall adopt a certain attitude in understanding and in trying
to find a solution to that problem. That is all you mean. You
do not solve the problem by passing a decree or a law to the
effect that we should have socialism or nationalization or the
taxation of the rich. By all means, tax anybody who can bear
it; tax him as hard as you like. Certainly, let us have a socialist
outlook; let us go towards the socialization of our means of
production, etc. We can do that but it is not a solution; nor

556

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

is it a constructive suggestion as to how the solution can be
reached. Therefore, a mere attitude is not enough. You have
to do much more and find out what precisely are the steps
that should be taken. That is the way the Planning Commis-
sion is trying to work and that is the way, I hope, when its
report comes before it, this House will consider it.

A government is apt to go wrong, because it is over-
burdened with pressing problems and has little time to think
in a co-ordinated and integrated way. It tries to, of course.
But, generally, every department of the Government is
overburdened and that again is a difficulty common to all
Governments the wide world over. We are facing crisis after
crisis — domestic and international — and just cannot think
calmly of the future. Therefore, it is quite necessary that
there should be people who are not overburdened by the
problems of the day and who can think in an integrated way
of the steps that should be taken. That is what the Planning
Commission is for; it is working in close co-operation with
the Government, thinking of these problems in this manner,
offering suggestions, proposals and recommendations which
the Government and the Legislature can consider and give
effect to, if they so choose. Both in this House and outside, I
have often been criticized for my doings and those of my
Government. I think it is always good to try and discover
one’s failings. And, obviously, there are failings. It is quite
absurd for any one to say that this Government has not made
mistakes and will not make mistakes. We must be careful
and introspective, we must correct our errors and welcome
healthy criticism. But if you want a complete picture of what
is happening, you have to see both the credit side and the
debit side. You have to remember how far both these sides are
governed by factors beyond our control. They are big factors
that affect the whole world. If there is a world war, it may be
that this Government, this House and this country are not
responsible for it; it may be that we have tried to avoid
it, yet we will be affected by it. We won’t be able to escape
the consequences of that war, even though we may try to
keep out of it, as I hope we will. Similarly, there may .be so
many other factors that affect us and our achievements and

THE IMPORTANCE OF TOMORROW

557

failures, that detract from our achievements and exaggerate
our failures. The thought of these factors has often distressed
me but at no time have I had a feeling of frustration. I do not
personally like the word frustration to be used as often as it
is. A person, who sees frustration in another, usually has it
in his own mind and heart and he conveys that sense to the
Other person, too. When I begin to experience that feeling of
sheer frustration in my work, I shall cease to have any value
for this Government, because the spirit that makes one work,
the vision that draws one on would cease and vanish. Then
I would become a mere head and I do not think I could be
of much use to this Government or to the House then.

There is another thing I should like the House to think
about. Shall we not also think of our tomorrows sometimes?
Or must we invariably lose ourselves in our todays? I cannot
ignore today, obviously. But so far as I am concerned, I must
confess to you that the morrow is slightly more important to
me than today. If we are thinking in terms of progress, we
have to build for a tomorrow that will make progress possible;
and we have to build on a firm foundation, even though the
laying of that foundation may create some difficulties today.
That is the correct attitude. One may, of course, make a
mistake in doing that; but that is a different matter.

There is a great deal of talk about inefficiency and corrup-
tion. I do not deny that, to a great extent, this criticism is
valid; but surely, it is not a matter of policy that there is
inefficiency and corruption ! Every intelligent person agrees
that there should be efficiency, that there should be a govern-
ment that is clean from top to bottom. It is our objective to
achieve such conditions where they are absent; but it is a
matter of ways and means. While I admit that there is
inefficiency and wastage and that there is nepotism and
corruption in the country, I would like to say — and I speak
from my own experience — that, in spite of all this talk, we
are a more efficient and a more clean nation than most
nations in the world. That, of course, is no reason why we
should be happy about it: we should always strive to
improve things and we should invite the co-operation of
other people in doing so. We should approach this problem

558 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1955

in a constructive way and not merely offer destructive
criticism.

Our Services are often criticized; but the Services of any
large country are bound to have something of both good and
bad and something of what is indifferent. It is very easy to
pick out the unfavourable aspects and to criticize them.

I do not think I have been very lenient. I have not
refrained from criticizing when I thought criticism was
necessary. Nevertheless, I should like to say that this wide-
spread criticism of the Services is totally uncalled for and that
our Services, taken all in all, are a fine body of men and
women. They have their black sheep, they have mediocre
elements, they have their fools. But that is true of any large
body of human beings; there are bound to be first-rate,
second-rate and third-rate men. As I said, on the whole, they
are an able lot of people, loyally carrying out the policies
that the Government lays down. Some of them are very fine
individuals, indeed. If an individual goes wrong, let us
criticize him and take him to task as an individual; but let
us not talk vaguely about the Services as such. All that this
will do is to dishearten even the good people we have in the
Services, make them less confident and, therefore, more
inefficient. When Acharya Kripalani tells this House about
the ineptitude of the Government and about the inefficiency,
the corruption and the wastage, I agree with him in a
measure. I appreciate his distress at che state of affairs in the
country, because he and I and many of us here have had
high ideals and when we find that we cannot reach these
ideals, we are naturally distressed. Nevertheless, I would like
to remind him that there is the other side of the picture also;
and sometimes other people are able to see that side better
than we can. I have had occasion to meet eminent people
from other countries who had come to India. They have seen
what we have done and what we have failed to do. I am
thinking, at the moment, of those who are experts in their
fields and know a great deal about the world and about
what has been done in other countries today. These people
have not been great admirers of India by any means, they
have had no great love for India but they have, nevertheless.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TOMORROW

559

been struck by the achievement of India in the last few years.
They were not blind to our failings but they could also see
the achievements. Many of the hon. Members must have seen
the Engineering Exhibition that has been here for the last
two months. It is a wonderful record of the basic things that
have been done in India. It is a record that you cannot fail
to recognize, whether you are an Indian or not. I was filled
with a certain pride in our achievements and in what is
being done. The foreign experts I was talking about also felt
with some surprise that this country, in spite of the troubles
it has had to face, is still achieving big things.

Take our National Laboratories. Today, they may not
produce engines. But these laboratories are something that
greatly impresses people from abroad. And they are impressed
because of the fine work that is being done there by a
thousand or more enthusiastic young scientists of India.
One takes pride in them and in their work and India can
build her future on that basis if they are given the chance
and if we do not lose ourselves in trivialities, in the small
things of life. I can mention many basic things that are being
done and, I hope, will be done in the future.

The other day I was in Bombay and I visited the Aarey
Milk Scheme which the Bombay Government has started.
It is a magnificent project. We sometimes talk in this House
about preserving cattle, about Vanaspati ghee and other
matters and, no doubt, what we say is worth while; but we
always talk negatively. I know we want milk in this country;
but nobody makes any constructive proposals as to how it
can be obtained. To come back to the Aarey Milk Scheme,
its object is to provide pure, fine milk to millions and millions
of people in Bombay. Now, that is the sort of thing I should
like the whole country to emulate, not only in the provision
of good and cheap milk but also in the preservation of cattle.
The Aarey Milk Scheme is an example of what the Govern-
ment has done with the help of the country and this House.
Of course, there are also other things which are in the process
of being done and which will not yield immediate results.
Obviously, we cannot expect our river valley schemes to give
us immediate dividends. You have to wait two or three years

560 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1955

— perhaps ten years. Do you wish us to carry on with these
schemes, even though they do not yield results at once or do
you think it is more important to please the people today by
lessening their immediate burdens somehow? We can do
that to some extent but tomorrow the people will have no
chance of further progress. In* order to progress, you must
save money for progress every year, whether you are a
communist State or a socialist or a capitalist State; you must
produce more than you can consume as a State. If you
consume more than you produce, you will have bankruptcy.
If you consume just enough, then you remain where you are
and do not go ahead. Remember always the fact that if our
production goes up a little, so does our population and you
have, therefore, to reckon that too and produce more or
take some measures to put a check on the growth of the
population. Certainly, it is not our policy to put a premium
on the increase of population of every kind of animal in this
country or to allow the old and lame animals to grow in
number; and we wish to do everything to prevent wild
animals from spoiling our fields and eating up our crops.
But some of our traditions and customs come in the way of
our food production and our economy. Has any hon. Member
ever calculated how much wastage there is on this score?
There is an enormous wastage, because we follow certain
old customs and traditions, which have no place in the
modern world. In fact, they might well crush us in spite of
any economy we might adopt. This is the context in which
I should like to consider this Budget. I submit to this House
that India undoubtedly has tremendous potential resources.
India has skilful men and women to utilize these resources.
We have to yoke the men and women and the natural
resources together. We are trying to do so in some small
measure but we have to do this more effectively. In the
measure we do so, in the measure that people work hard,
we produce wealth. There is no other way. A piece of legisla-
tion will not solve this problem unless we become a hard-
working nation. With all respect to many people, I am
compelled to say that we are not a hard-working nation.
I travel abroad a good deal and often have opportunities of

THE IMPORTANCE OF TOMORROW

861

seeing how other nations are facing their problems and how
hard they work in Europe, China and Japan. Whether their
policy is communist or socialist or some other, they work
hard and suffer privations more than most of us do. I am not
talking about the poor peasant or the poor worker in India
but of those who are somewhat better off. I wish we could
find some solution because I think it is a painful and hateful
thing for people to go about feasting when there is such
terrible scarcity and when there is privation and suffering
all over the country.

It is now a fairly long time since I occupied this place as
Prime Minister. It seems even longer than it has been, because
it has been a difficult time, because there has been crisis after
crisis and because all the things that one intended to do —
most of them, at any rate — could not be done. Often, there
were doubts; nevertheless, some part of the whole vision
persisted, some faith in the people of India persisted and I
tried to do my best. Whether this Government has succeeded
or not is for some dispassionate historian of the future to say.
Certainly, we wanted to succeed. What I am concerned with
and what my colleagues, who are more or less of my age
and with whom I have laboured for these thirty years or
more, are concerned with is that in the afternoon of our
lives, in these remaining years, we should devote all the
energy that we have in realizing the ideals which we have
held: we are anxious to see that we do not forsake them.
Yet, it is painful to feel all the time that while you hold the
ideals, something comes in the way and you cannot go for-
ward as you want to. There are so many factors in the world
that you cannot control. The human material that you work
with is not always good and there are your own failings to
reckon with. Nevertheless, it is something to hold them and
to try one’s utmost to realize them and to give all one's
strength and energy in that process till one is exhausted and
is thrown aside.

COOPERATION AMONG PEOPLE

Y ou, Sir, Mr President, have referred to a multitude of
problems in your address. You have commended some
activities of the Government, criticized others and offered
advice, so that we may function better than we have so far
done. We welcome your advice and the advice of others
given with good intentions and with a view to improving
conditions in the country'. Anything that you suggest or your
organization suggests will, undoubtedly, receive our most
earnest attention.

I am sure that you don’t expect me to deal with the
various matters you have discussed. Perhaps, it would be
more suitable to the occasion if I spoke to you about certain
matters of basic importance; for we have to be clear in our
minds about our basic social objectives.

You will permit me to say something which I probably
ought not to, and that is to confess that, during the last few
years, we have not been very clear as to the direction in which
we are going. In the immediate present, we might realize the
importance of a particular step in the broader aspects of
policy. Nevertheless, there is an enormous gulf between the
immediate present and the future about which, in these
changing circumstances, there is a great deal of difference
of opinion in the country among those who have given
thought to it.

The fact is that vast, new social forces are at work all over
the world, as a result of various developments but mainly
because of tremendous technological and political changes.
In India and in Asia, large numbers of people have become
politically conscious and refuse to submit as they did in the
past. Tremendous social conflicts are taking place and they
sometimes lead to international conflicts. The great nations
of the world are following economic policies that differ widely
from one another.

We may have a certain theoretical approach to problems
but that does little good unless it is related to the practical

Speech at the twenty-fourth annual session of the Federation of Indian
Chambers of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi, March SI, 1951

CO-OPERATION AMONG PEOPLE

S6S

aspects of reality. Our approach must be fashioned by a
study of existing conditions and our objectives, so that we
can apply, if I may say so, the idealistic approach with a
practical consideration of the problems prevailing in the
country at a particular time.

You will permit me to say that it is possible that our
approach is a very limited one; it is possible that our approach
derives from something static that belongs to the past and
not so much from the proper appreciation of a situation that
is changing and dynamic. Towards the end of your address,
you referred in general terms to various objectives that we
have. I suppose most of us would agree with those objectives
although, of course, some may go further than others.

To say that we want greater wealth, higher standards
of living and greater production will, I take it, not be
contradicted. We have to achieve these objectives, not merely
mechanically but also in a social sense which is very
important. I have been driven almost against my will to the
conclusion that material well-being is just as important in
human life as anything else. High standards of living are
important and we must achieve them; but, at the moment
it is absurd to talk of high standards in India where the
lowest are sometimes lacking. We must have the basic neces-
saries of life and only then can we think of higher standards.

Nevertheless, there is such a thing — I do not know how to
define it — as the social condition of the organism or the
individual or the group. Frankly speaking, when I see some
of the very highly developed nations of the world, I admire
them. I want to copy many of their methods and all that;
and yet, a fear steals into my mind lest I should grow like
them, because there is something about their methods which,
I think, is not good for the individual or the group. The very
things that have brought wealth and prosperity to the
entire world, that is, the growth of technology, industrializa-
tion and the rest — and may I say, in passing, that I am all
in favour of the industrialization of India — have also brought
about the gradual and progressive turning of the human
being into a machine. I think that is a very dangerous thing.
We see the machine even in man’s normal avocations, we see

564

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1955

minds that have been so mechanized that they cannot think
except in the narrow grooves laid for them.

This process of mechanization is encouraged in a variety
of ways. These include, to some extent, the modem methods
of propaganda. So that, while you make great progress on
certain planes — and that progress is necessary and desirable
and must be made — you lose something which is perhaps
very valuable and very precious. Nor can you retain the other
things you value, the things that are precious to you, unless
you have material progress. Must one pay the price of
progress by losing that something or can one have both?

I personally think that most of the world’s ills that are
today leading us to the verge of a terrible war are, in the
final analysis, due to the growth of technology in a peculiarly
narrow way. In the old days, people were more backward
than they are today but one had a sense of an integrated
human life, a sense of balance. Today, one has a sense of
complete lack of balance in the individual, the group and
the nation.

There are wise men everywhere; but apart from them,
we have men who are highly qualified in their special
domains. If, however, they are taken out of their particular
groove, they are almost completely ignorant of life and its
ways and do not even know the most elementary facts of life,
as, perhaps, some simple person knows them. So that, while
excessive specialization and technological development do
obviously lead to the larger good of humanity in many ways,
a doubt creeps into my mind whether they are not under-
mining humanity at the same time by lowering the quality
of the mind and the spirit and by engendering tendencies of
self-destruction.

This is rather a distant consideration that I wish to place
before you, because it leads us to think that in the world
today there is a complete lack of balance. Certainly, India
is not much balanced. The fault may lie with the Government
or with somebody else. For the moment, let us forget whose
fault it is; it may be the fault of all of us but the fact is that
there is lack of balance. Our Finance Minister may seek some
financial balancing about imports and exports and about

CO-OPERATION AMONG PEOPLE

the sterling balances. That is all right; that has to be done
and is wisely done; but the real lack of balance is more basic
and it is affecting not only our economic life but also our
political and international life.

How are we to find balance in the world and particularly
in India? The equilibrium we need is not merely a question of
accountancy but something deeper. We tend to think of these
things from an accountant’s point of view; the accountant's
point of view cannot be utterly ignored, whether in
business or in other undertakings; but the accountant’s point
of view is a narrow point of view, as far as human life is
concerned. It is obvious that we cannot control the whole
world. It is too big a job for us. India provides a big enough
task. What can we do about it in India? I am not com-
petent to give an answer but one thing is clear to me,
namely, that whatever the answer may be, it cannot be
given effect to by a governmental decree.

It is too big a problem, it is too big a job for the Govern-
ment, even though the latter consists of the wisest men.
Obviously, the Government must give the lead in such a
matter. But in order to be effective it must have, as you
yourself said, Sir, public co-operation in a very large degree.

Then I come up against another difficulty. Public co-
operation in what? What is the public? What are the
people? You said ‘people’ repeatedly. Who are the people?
Are the eminent men and women who are sitting here
representatives of the important elements in our national
life? Are they the people you and I are thinking of? I have
no doubt that there are other people equally eminent in
other walks of life who have different viewpoints. Then
who are the people? How are we to bring together their
various viewpoints and different approaches to our problems?

Well, I suppose it is not possible to get everyone to agree.
Ultimately, what will happen in this country, as in other
countries, is that there will be certain cleavages of opinion
representing different economic approaches. They need not
necessarily come into conflict with one another all the time.
People have the right to have their own approaches; but I
am sure a solution can be hammered out of all these- If

37—11 DPD/6J

506

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

people so desire, they can co-operate to a large extent, even
though they differ. We seek public co-operation or the
people’s co-operation; but what is our purpose? And when
we lay down the purpose, each group has different views
about the purpose, too.

You may, of course, say in normal times that it does not
matter very much if minor mistakes are made. But what one
does is important in times of crisis or emergency. One has
sometimes to be a little ruthless; one cannot go about
knocking at every man’s doorstep and asking his opinion
when something has to be done the next minute or within
the next hour. If one does that, there is a danger that the
crisis may overwhelm us.

In times of war, a country functions in a different way
from the normal. In fact, in times of war, it is even more
necessary to have public co-operation than in times of peace.
When urgent decisions and quick action are necessary and
when people’s opinions may differ considerably about the
action, ironically enough that is the very time when the
largest measure of support from the public is necessary.
Distressing wars are going on; nevertheless, they are on a
small scale; but we live in near-war conditions all over the
world. Though, we hope, the war will not come to us in the
near future, the conditions are such that, to some extent,
we have to think in terms of war. in terms of stockpiling, for
instance.

There can be no doubt that we in India, as many people
in other countries, live in a period of crisis and emergency.
Whether we are big enough to face them adequately or not
is another matter. Yet, I find a strange lack of awareness of
this fact. Even those, who criticize the Government strongly,
lack.urgency in their tone and in the manner of their criticism.
In fact, if I may say so, an urgent thing does not take hours
to tell. A crisis requires swift action and does not warrant
long speeches.

It is about time that this country recognized adequately
that we live in a time of deep crisis. I am not mentioning
this word repeatedly to frighten you — I am not frightened of
it — but to make you aware that something more than casual

CO-OPERATION AMONG PEOPLE

887

talks and discussions is necessary and to tell you that die
Government in any part of India may have to act swiftly
and sternly because of this crisis. You must also realize that
any government, if it has to function adequately, must have
the support of the country. Otherwise, you may also have
unstable and weak governments which, even when they are
very good or wise governments, just cannot function
effectively. It is very bad for a country to have weak and
unstable governments in such times. It does not really matter
to me what government you have — I am being quite honest
— but it is obvious that only a government that can decide
swiftly and act effectively will be able to control the destinies
of the country in a crisis.

This crisis cannot be easily or even quicklv overcome.
Fortunately, in a few months’ time the country will have an
opportunity of choosing any government it wants to. I hope
it will choose a stable government and not a weak one. Many
of our problems have deeper causes than can be dealt with
by accounting methods. We should study, analyse and
understand them. We should try to understand, not only
their deeper causes in the wide world but the psychology of
our own people. All of us are too apt to advise others — and
I .am an equal sinner with them — and do not, in our turn,
learn from others. Psychology means a good deal and,
however right we may think ourselves to be, a great deal
depends on how others are feeling about the course of events.
If people feel that things are going wrong, then even the
satisfaction that they are acting rightly is not enough.

So, we come back to the same question. How are we to
evolve a policy whereby we can gain our social objectives?
I should say that the only right way to do it from a govern-
mental point of view is through what is known as the Planning
Commission. I do not understand why people go on thinking
of the Planning Commission as a grandiose body making
wild schemes for which we may or may not have the resources.

I have said more than once that such a conception is
wrong. The Planning Commission has no business to make
any wild schemes at any time. It must always make schemes
which can be given effect to and which are practical. We

568

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1955

need a planning commission to tell us how we can utilize
our resources to the best possible advantage without wasting
them. Indeed, if there was no planning commission in India,
I would despair. Eminent men who are not troubled by daily
difficulties of administration are trying to look at the whole
picture impartially and discussing with members of the
Government, industry, labour and so on. If these men are not
good enough, we shall fail. But that is the only possible
approach we can make to our problems.

It is no longer possible and no longer right for all the
chambers of commerce or labour unions of the world to tell
us that they will show us the direction in which we should go.
The sooner we realize this the better it will be.

We have private enterprise in this country, of course, and
we encourage it. We talk about the private sector and the
public sector. But I think that when you come to grips with
the subject from a practical point of view, there is usually
not too much difference of opinion between them if there is
earnestness. That is important and, judging from the reports
I have read and heard, the Planning Commission, in dealing
with some of our problems with the representatives of industry
and commerce and labour, has sometimes met with far greater
success than we might have expected, simply because the
people who got together were earnest about finding a way out
or rather because they realized that the common interest and
their personal interest lay in the same direction. When indivi-
dual interests become allied with public interests, then results
are achieved. Similarly, in war time, each person subordinates
his private interest, to some extent, for the public good to
save the country’s freedom and to defend the country.

It is obvious that, in the world today, you cannot have the
type of objective that, perhaps, actuated the 19th century
in the West. You cannot have it anywhere. We may still be
in the 19th century phase of growth in regard to industry;
that is a different matter. But the social objectives have
changed. We cannot create the social outlook that prevailed
in the United Kingdom a hundred years ago.

Private enterprise and public enterprise are often dis-
cussed. Such discussions seem to me to be somewhat

CO-OPERATION AMONG PEOPLE 569

theoretical unless we apply them to particular problems.
If you look at the world today, even countries that stand
hundred per cent for private enterprise are by a strange
evolution changing over fairly rapidly — and not through
the enactment of laws either. In almost every country of
Europe, a deliberate change-over is taking place. The pace
of the change-over differs from country to country.

It is not enough merely to increase production unless you
know what happens to the produce. The early 19th century
or the late 18th century saw the growth of modern industria-
lism and the rate of production increased tremendously.
The people in England who produced were not men who
spent their money in luxury. They lived a hard life; it was
almost a religion with them to save money for development.
To develop the country, they lived simple, abstemious lives;
but in saving for the country they used their workers in a way
which nobody can conceive of as tolerable today.

The conditions that existed in England in the early 19th
century were really amazing; but they did thereby lay the
foundations of a certain process of saving for the develop-
ment of England. If England had to do the same today,
she could not do it, because social objectives have changed
and the problem of industry has to be approached in a
different way.

I just mentioned controls. Obviously, nobody is going to
say that controls are good in themselves and should be
retained for their own sake. At the same time, I think nobody
is prepared to say that there should be no controls, whatever
happens. If that is the position, it is a question of examining
when, where and which controls are necessary. The question
of social objectives is bound to come up when the possible
consequences of imposing controls or withdrawing them are
considered.

For instance, it is my firm belief that one of the fatal steps
that my Government took was to remove control on cloth
two or three years ago. It was a dangerous step which had
dangerous consequences; and I am not prepared to face those
consequences again. If those consequences are repeated, the
whole social structure will tumble down. Of course, controls

570

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

are hateful things; they encourage coiruption and all that. 1
should like to do away with them; but I am not prepared to
see starvation and nakedness over large parts of India for the
sake of some theoretical idea that, if we did not have controls,
we would gradually settle down. Of course, we would; but,
gradually, most of us will be dead, too.

Therefore, I would like you to realize that any policy
you may undertake, adopt or recommend, whether economic
or political, cannot be judged from the kind of static view-
point which one might have accepted some years ago. We
live constantly — in every country of the world — on economic
and political volcanoes. It may well be that some policy
that might have been profitable or at any rate, could not
have produced disastrous results some years ago, if followed
now, may produce such repercussions — not, perhaps, so
much in the economic field as in the social — as would shake
the whole social structure which you and we all represent.
I do not, of course, challenge your capacity to appreciate
these various problems; but you will permit me to say that
in some matters I represent expert knowledge. I may go
wrong completely in the economic or political field; but I
represent a certain expert knowledge of the psychology of
India and her people. And I can feel, I can sense and I can
see it, in spite of my having lived apart for the past four or
five years. My previous contacts with the Indian masses have
been so intimate that I can somehow sense what they feel,
even by looking at a crowd of 50,000 or 100,000, for it has
been my great good fortune to have had the affection of the
Indian people.

Even when they thought that I had acted wrongly, they
gave me their love and affection and there can be no more
precious gift than that. It has been a very great burden on
me that people should be so enormously gracious and kind
to me. That I should be able to discharge my responsibilities
adequately and to bring them the relief, which they desire
and so richly deserve, has been my lifelong dream. And so,
I try to think of these problems in my own imperfect way,
try to consult my colleagues and try to find the way forward.
But I am convinced that whatever that way may be, there is

A RADIANT FIGURE

571

no going forward very far without the largest measure of
co-operation from the people.

This, ladies and gentlemen, includes you, who represent
trade, industry and commerce, and those who are in other
walks of life; but it principally includes the large masses of
the people of this country who will ultimately make it or
unmake it. I, therefore, appeal to you for intelligent
co-operation. I ask no man not to criticize our Government
or its doings but I do wish you and others to appreciate the
crisis and the emergency that we are living in.

Humanity is passing through a crisis. If you realize this
danger, you would brace yourselves up and know what to do
if India were suddenly to be attacked tomorrow. I am not
expecting an attack tomorrow, so don’t be misled; but if
India were attacked tomorrow, we would have to struggle.
Would we at that time discuss secondary problems and
spend time uselessly picking holes in long documents?
We would try to get down to the bottom of things, come
together, decide what to do with a sense of emergency and
do it. It wouldn’t matter very much, if somebody lost some-
thing or gained something, provided we achieved that we
wanted. That is the spirit in which I would like you and
the country to face our problems and that is the spirit in
which I want the Planning Committee to face them and to
produce something, as rapidly as possible, which can be a
kind of nucleus for our actions and a basis for all classes and
groups of people to come together, confer together and then
to. move forward jointly.

A RADIANT FIGURE

N early three and a half years have gone by since Gandhiji
passed away. The manner of his death was the culmination
and perfect climax to an astonishing career. Even during his

Foreword to D. G. Tendulkar's Mahatma, Pahalgam, Kashmir, June SO, 1951

572 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

life time, innumerable stories and legends had grown around
him and now he seems almost a legendary figure, one in the
great line of India’s sages and heroes and wise men. A new
generation grows up to whom he is only a name, a great
name to be revered but nevertheless a name. Within a few
more years there will not be many left who have come in
personal contact with him and had experience of that vivid,
virile and magnificent personality. The legend will grow and
take many shapes, sometimes with little truth in it. Succeed-
ing generations will remember him and pay honour to him.
As is India’s way, we shall add him to our pantheon and
celebrate the day of his birth and the day of his passing away.
We shall shout Jai when his name is mentioned and, perhaps,
feel elated that we have done our duty to him.

What gods there are, I know not; and I am not concerned
about them. But there are certain rare qualities which-raise a
man above the common herd and make him appear as though
-he were of different clay. The long story of humanity can be
considered from many points of view; it is a story of the
advance and growth of man and the spirit of man; it is also
a story full of agony and tragedy. It is a story of masses of
men and women in ferment and in movement and it is also
th£ story of great and outstanding personalities who have
given content and shape to that movement of masses.

In that story Gandhi occupies and will occupy a pre-
eminent place. We are too near him to judge him correctly.
Some of us came in intimate contact with him and were
influenced by that dominating and very lovable personality.
We miss him profoundly, for he had become a part of our
own lives. With us the personal factor is so strong that it
comes in the way of a correct appraisal. Others who did
not know him so intimately cannot, perhaps, have a full
realization of the living fire that was in this man of peace
and humility. So, both these groups lack proper perspective
or knowledge. Whether that perspective will come in later
years when the problems and conflicts of today are matters
for the historian, I do not know. But I have no doubt that
in the distant as in the near future this towering personality
will stand out and compel homage. It may be that the

A RADIANT FIGURE

573

message which he embodied will be understood and acted
upon more in later years than it is today. That message was
not confined to a particular country or a community. What-
ever truth there was in it was a truth applicable to all
countries and to humanity as a whole. He may have stressed
certain aspects of it in relation to the India of his day and
those particular aspects may cease to have much significance
as times and conditions change. The kernel of that message
was, however, not confined to time or space. And if this
is so, then it will endure and grow in the understanding of
man.

He brought freedom to India and in that process taught
us many things which were important for us at the time. He
told us to shed fear and hatred; he told us of unity and
equality and brotherhood, of raising those who had been
suppressed, of the dignity of labour and of the supremacy of
things of the spirit. Above all, he spoke and wrote unceasingly
of truth in relation to all our activities. He repeated again
and again that Truth was to him God and God was Truth.
Scholars may raise their eyebrows and philosophers and
cynics repeat the old question; what is Truth? Few of us
dare to answer it with any assurance: it may be that the
answer itself is many-sided and our limited intelligence
cannot grasp the whole. But. however limited the functioning
of our minds or our capacity for intuition may be, each one
of us must, I suppose, have some limited idea of truth as he
sees it. Will he act up to it, regardless of consequences and
not compromise with what he himself considers an aberra-
tion from it? Will he, even in search of the right goal,
compromise with the means of attaining it? Will he
subordinate means to ends?

It is easy* to frame this question rather rhetorically, as if
there was only one answer. But life is exceedingly complicated
and the choice it offers is never simple. Perhaps, to some
extent, an individual leading an’ isolated life may endeavour
with some success to answer that question for himself. But
where he is concerned not only with his own actions but
with those of many others, when fate or circumstances have
put him in a position where he moulds and directs others.

574 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

what is he to do? How is a leader of men to function?
If -he is a leader, he must lead and not merely follow the
dictates of the crowd, though some modern conceptions
of the functioning of democracy would lead one to think
that he must bow down to the largest number. If he does so,
then he is no leader and he cannot take others far along the
right path of human progress. If he acts singly, according to
his own lights, he cuts himself off from the very persons whom
he is trying to lead. If he brings himself down to the same
level of understanding as others, then he has lowered himself,
been untrue to his own ideal and compromised with Truth.
And once such compromises begin, there is no end to them
and the path is slippery. What then is he to do? It is not
enough for him to perceive truth or some aspect of it. He
must succeed in making others perceive it also.

The average leader of men, especially in a democratic
society, has continually to adapt himself to his environment
and to choose what he considers the lesser evil. Some
adaptation is inevitable. But as this process goes on, occasions
arise when that adaptation imperils the basic ideal and
objective. I suppose there is no clear answer to this question
and each individual and each generation will have to find its
own answer.

The amazing thing about Gandhi was that he adhered,
in the fullest sense, to his ideals and to his conception of truth;
yet, he succeeded in moulding and moving enormous masses
of human beings. He was not inflexible. He was very much
alive to the necessities of the moment and he adapted himself
to changing circumstances. But all these adaptations were
about secondary matters. In regard to the basic things, he
was inflexible and firm as a rock. For him, there was no
compromise with what he considered evil. He moulded a
whole generation and more and raised them above them-
selves for the time being at least. That was a tremendous
achievement.

• Does that achievement endure? It brought results which
will undoubtedly endure. It also brought in its train some
reactions. For people, compelled by circumstances to raise
themselves above their normal level, are apt to sink back to

A RADIANT FIGURE

575

even lower levels than before. We see something like that
happening today. We saw that reaction in the tragedy of
Gandhi’s own assassination. What is worse is the general
lowering of these standards for the raising of which Gandhi
devoted his life. Perhaps, this is a temporary phase and
people will recover from it and find themselves again. I
have no doubt that, deep in the consciousness of India, the
basic teachings of Gandhi will endure and continue to affect
our national life.

No man can write a true life of Gandhi unless he is him-
self as big as Gandhi. So, we can expect to have no real and
fully adequate life of this man. Difficult as it is to write a life
of Gandhi, it becomes far more so because his life has been an
intimate part of India’s life for half a century or more. Yet, if
many attempt to write his life, they may succeed in throwing
light on some aspects of this unique career and also give
people some understanding of this memorable period of
India’s history.

Tendulkar has laboured for many years over this book.
He told me about it during Gandhiji’s life time and 1
remember his consulting Gandhi ji a few months before his
death. Any one can see that this work has involved great
and devoted labour for many long years. It brings together
more facts and data about Gandhi than any book that I
know. It is immaterial whether or not we agree with the
author’s interpretation or opinion. We are given here a mass
of evidence and we can form our own opinions. Therefore,
I consider this book to be of great value as a record not only
of the life of a man supreme in his generation but also of a
period of India’s history which has intrinsic importance of
its own. We live today in a world torn with hatred and
violence and fear and passion and the shadow of war hangs
heavily over us. Gandhi told us to cast away our fear and
passion and to keep away from hatred and violence. His
voice may not be heard by many in the tumult and shouting
of today but it will have to be heard and understood some
time or other if this world is to survive in any civilized form.

People will write the life of Gandhi and they will discuss
and criticize him and his theories and activities. But to some

576

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1955

of us, he will remain something apart from theory — a radiant
and beloved figure who ennobled and gave significance to
our petty lives and whose passing has left us with a feeling
of emptiness and loneliness. Many pictures rise in my mind
of this man, whose eyes were often full of laughter and yet
were pools of infinite sadness. But the picture that is dominant
and most significant is as I saw him marching, staff in hand,
to Dandi on the Salt March in 1930. Here was the pilgrim
on his quest of truth, quiet, peaceful, determined and fearless,
who would continue that quiet pilgrimage, regardless of
consequences.

THE TRIBAL FOLK

M r Chairman and friends, this audience is more or less a
select one since it consists largely of experts. I am not an
expert and, I am afraid, I shall not be able to contribute
much if we were to sit down and discuss your problems.

I suppose you have invited me here, because I happen to
occupy the office of Prime Minister but I think I have
another and possibly greater claim to participate in this
Conference. The claim is that I have always — long before I
became Prime Minister — felt very strongly attracted to the
tribal people of this country. This feeling was not the curiosity
an idle observer has for strange customs; nor was it the attrac-
tion of the charitably disposed who want to do good to other
people. I was attracted to them simply because I felt happy
and at home with them. I liked them without any desire to
do them good or to have good done to me. To do good to
others is, I think, a very laudable desire but it often leads to
great excesses which do not result in good to either the doer
or the recipient.

In the tribal people, I have found many qualities which I
miss in the people of the plains, cities and other parts of

Speech at the opening session of the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Areas
Conference, New Delhi, June 7, 1952

THE TRIBAL FOLK

577

India. It was these very qualities that attracted me.

The tribal people of India are a virile people who
naturally went astray sometimes. They quarrelled and occa-
sionally cut off one another’s heads. These were deplorable
occurrences and should have been checked. Even so, it
struck me that some of their practices were perhaps less evil
than those that prevail in our cities. It is often better to cut
off a hand or a head than to crush and trample on a heart.
Perhaps, I also felt happy with these simple folk, because the
nomad in me found congenial soil in their company. I
approached them in a spirit of comradeship and not like some
one aloof who had come to look at them, examine them,
weigh them, measure them and report about them or to try
and make them conform to another way of life.

I am alarmed when I see — not only in this country but
in other great countries, too — how anxious people are to
shape others according to their own image or likeness and to
impose on them their particular way of living. We are
welcome to our way of living but why impose it on others?
This applies equally to national and international fields. In
fact, there would be more peace in the world, if people were
to desist from imposing their way of living on other people
and countries.

I am not at all sure which is the better way of living. In
some respects I am quite certain theirs is better. Therefore,
it is grossly presumptuous on our part to approach them with
an air of superiority or to tell them what to do or not to do.
There is no point in trying to make of them a second rate
copy of ourselves.

Now, who are these tribal folk? A way of describing
them is that they are the people of the frontiers or those who
live away from the interior of this country. Just as the hills
breed a somewhat different type of people from those who
inhabit the plains, so also the frontier breeds a different type
of people from those who live away from the frontier. My
own predilection is for the mountains rather than for the
plains, for the hill folk rather than the plains people. So also
I prefer the frontier, not only in a physical sense but because
the idea of living near a frontier appeals to me intellectually.

578 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

I feel that it would prevent one from becoming complacent
and complacency is a very grave danger, especially in a great
country like India where the nearest frontier may be a
thousand miles away.

We should have a receptive attitude to the tribal people.
There is a great deal we can learn from them, particularly
in the frontier areas; and having learnt, we must try to help
and co-operate. They are an extremely disciplined people,
often a great deal more democratic than most others in
India. Even though they have no constitution, they are able
to function democratically and carry out the decisions made
by their elders or representatives. Above all, they are a people
who sing and dance and try to enjoy life; not people who sit
in stock exchanges, shout at one another and think themselves
civilized.

1 would prefer being a nomad in the hills to being a
member of stock exchanges, where one is made to sit and
listen to noises that are ugly to a degree. Is that the civili-
zation we want the tribal people to have? I hope not. I am
quite sure that the tribal folk, with their civilization of song
and dance, will last till long after stock exchanges have
ceased to exist.

It is a very great pity that we in the cities have drifted so
far away from the aesthetic side of life. We still have a good
many folk songs and dances when we go to the villages,
because modern civilization has more or less left them un-
touched. The progress of modern civilization in India
involves both good things and bad. One of the things we have
lost is the spirit of song and dance and the capacity for enjoy-
ment and this is what the tribal people so abundantly have.
We seem to pay too much attention to the cinema; it is
undoubtedly an excellent medium for many good things but
unfortunately it has not proved to be particularly inspiring.
We must imbibe something of the spirit of the tribal folk
instead of damping it with our long faces and black gowns.

For half a century or more, we have struggled for freedom
and ultimately achieved it. That struggle, apart from any-
thing else, was a great liberating force. It raised us above
ourselves, it improved us and hid for the moment some of our

THE TRIBAL FOLK

579

weaknesses. We must remember that this experience of
hundreds of millions of Indian people was not shared by the
tribal folk. Our struggle for freedom did influence the tribes
in Central India to some extent but the frontier areas of
Assam, for instance, remained almost unaffected by it. This
was partly due to the inadequacy of the means of communi-
cation available to us in the old days. Of course, there were
other reasons, too.

One of the reasons was that the city people were a little
afraid to leave their familiar haunts and go into the moun-
tains. The Christian missionaries went to various tribal areas
and some of them spent practically all their lives there. I do
not find many instances of people from the plains going to
the tribal areas to settle down. Apart from our own lack of
initiative, we were not allowed to go there by the British
authorities then in power. That is why our freedom move-
ment reached these people only in the shape of occasional
rumours. Sometimes they reacted rightly and sometimes
wrongly but that is beside the point. The essence of our
struggle for freedom was the unleashing of a liberating force
in India. This force did not even affect the frontier people in
one of the most important tribal areas. The result is that
while we have had several decades in which to prepare our-
selves psychologically for basic changes, the tribal people
have had no such opportunity. On the contrary, they were
prepared the other way round through the efforts of the
British officials and sometimes the missionaries. The
missionaries did very good work there and I am all praise for
them but, politically speaking, they did not particularly like
the changes in India. In fact, just when a new political
awareness dawned on India, there was a movement in north-
eastern India to encourage the people of the north-east to
form separate and independent States. Many foreigners
resident in the area supported this movement. I do not
understand how it could be considered practical or feasible
from any point of view. My point is that the whole of the
north-east frontier had been conditioned differently during
the past generation and even in more recent years. The
fault lay partly with us and partly with circumstances. These

680

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-195S

factors have an important bearing on any genuine under-
standing of the tribal folk. They are our own people and our
work does not end with the opening of so many schools and
so many dispensaries and hospitals. Of course, we want
schools and hospitals and dispensaries and roads and all that
but to stop there is rather a dead way of looking at things.
What we ought to do is to develop a sense of oneness with
these people, a sense of unity and understanding. That
involves a psychological approach.

You may talk day after day about development pro-
grammes in regard to schools and other matters but you will
fail completely if you do not touch the real core of the
problem. The need today is to understand these people, make
them understand us and thus create a bond of affection and
understanding. After the achievement of independence, the
basic problem of India, taken as a whole, is one of integration
and consolidation. Political integration is now complete but
that is not enough. We must bring about changes much
more basic and intimate than mere political integration.
That will take time, because it is not merely a matter of law.
All we can do is to nurture it and create conditions where it
finds congenial soil. So, the greatest problem of India today
is not so much political as psychological integration and
consolidation. India must build up for herself a unity which
will do away with provincialism, communalism and the
various other ‘isms’ which disrupt and separate.

As I said, we must approach the tribal people with
affection and friendliness and come to them as a liberating
force. We must let them feel that we come to give and not to
take something away from them. That is the kind of psycho-
logical integration India needs. If, on the other hand, they
feel you have come to impose yourselves upon them or that we
go to them in order to try and change their methods of living,
to take away their land and to encourage our businessmen to
exploit them, then the fault is ours, for it only means that our
approach to the tribal people is wholly wrong. The less we
hear of this type of integration and consolidation of the tribal
areas, the better it will be.

We ought to be careful about appointing officers any-

THE TRIBAL FOLK

881

where but. we must be doubly so when we appoint them in
tribal areas. An officer in the tribal areas should not merely
be a man who has passed an examination or gained some
experience of routine work. He must be a man with enthu-
siasm, whose mind and even more so whose heart understand
die problem it is his duty to deal with. He must not go there
just to sit in an office for a few hours a day and for the rest
curse his fate for being sent to an out of the way place. That
type of man is completely useless. It is far better to send a
totally uneducated man who has passed no examination, so
long as he goes to these people with friendship and affection
and lives as one of them. Such a man will produce better
results than the brilliant intellectual who has no human
understanding of the problem. The man who goes there as
an officer must be prepared to share his life with the tribal
folk. He must be prepared to enter their huts, talk to them,
eat and smoke with them, live their lives and not consider
himself superior or apart. Then only can he gain their
confidence and respect and thus be in a position to advise
them.

The language problem is almost always exceedingly
important from the psychological point of view. The best of
solutions can come to nought if misunderstood or misinter-
preted by the party concerned. It is absolutely clear to me
that the Government must encourage the tribal languages.
It is not enough simply to allow them to prevail. They must
be given all possible support and the conditions in which
they can flourish must be safeguarded. We must go out of
our way to achieve this. In the Soviet Republic we have the
example of a country that has adopted such a policy with
success. Lenin and other leaders in his time were exceedingly
wise in this respect. Regardless of their ultimate objective,
they wanted to win the goodwill of the people and they won
it largely by their policy of encouraging their languages, by
going out of their way to help hundreds of dialects, by pre-
paring dictionaries and vocabularies and sometimes even
by evolving new scripts where there were none. They wanted
their people to feel that they were free to live their own lives
and they succeeded in producing that impression. In the

M — 11 0PD/6S

582

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-195S

matter of languages there must be no compulsion whatever.

I have no doubt at all that the West Bengal Government
must have built special schools in places like Darjeeling and
Kalimpong for the Tibetan-speaking people. If the tribal
people have a script we must, of course, use it. But, normally,
they do not have a script and the only script they have thus
far learnt to some extent is the Roman script. It is a good
script no doubt; and because many people have learnt it, I
would not discourage it. But if we are to evolve a script —
here I do not speak with any assurance but am merely say-
ing something that has occurred to me — it might be better,
for the future, if we were to use the Devanagri script. It is
a relatively easy script, apart from the fact that it can put
the tribal folk more in touch with the rest of India than any
other script. In areas where a majority of the people already
know the Roman script, I would not suddenly force them to
abandon it because I do not want them to feel compelled
in any way.

I find that so far we have approached the tribal people in
one of two ways. One might be called the anthropological
approach in which we treat them as museum specimens to
be observed and written about. To treat them as specimens
for anthropological examination and analysis— except in the
sense that everybody is more or less an anthropological
specimen — is to insult them. We do not conceive of them as
living human beings with whom it is possible to work and
play. The other approach is one of ignoring the fact that they
are something different requiring special treatment and of
attempting forcibly to absorb them into the normal pattern
of social life. The way of forcible assimilation or of assimila-
tion through the operation of normal factors would be equally
wrong. In fact, I have no doubt that, if normal factors were
allowed to operate, unscrupulous people from outside would
take possession of tribal lands. They would take possession of
the forests and interfere with the life of the tribal people.
We must give them a measure of protection in their areas so
that no outsider can take possession of their lands or forests
or interfere with them in any way except with their consent
and goodwill. The first priority in tribal areas, as well as

THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION BILL 583

elsewhere in the country, must be given to roads and commu-
nications. Without that, nothing we may do will be effective.
Obviously, there is need for schools, for health relief, for
cottage industries and so on. One must always remember,
however, that we do not mean to interfere with their way o£
life but want to help them live it.

THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION BILL

YT7'e have listened to a large number of speakers during
™ ’ this debate. Many of them were eloquent, others narrated
individual experiences, some were even autobiographical.
They enunciated democratic principles and were at pains
to point out how this Bill violates all of them. Listening to
this debate, I have had a growing feeling of unreality, as
though we were not discussing any particular Bill before
this House but rather our personal experiences, our hopes
for the future, so much so that we seem altogether to have
ignored the Bill, its content and its language. We have
discussed democracy at length and I myself claim to have
some feeling for it. Democracy, as I understand it, means
something more than a certain form of government and a
body of egalitarian laws. It is essentially a scheme of values
and moral standards in life. Whether you are democratic
or not depends on how you act and think as an individual or
as a group. There is a fundamental approach to political and
other problems which may be called democratic and there
are others which are not. Let us examine this Bill in the light
of this criterion. If we find that there is anything basically
wrong with the Bill, let us scrap it by all means.

My colleagues in the Cabinet and I have given the
most earnest consideration to this measure because, either
apparently or really, it seeks to limit in a measure the normal
freedom of the citizen. It is only right that this House should

Speech in the House of the People, New Delhi, August 2, 1952

584

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949 1953

accord its assent to it only after it has examined its contents
with the greatest vigilance. We, in the Cabinet, eventually
decided that this measure was not only desirable but neces-
sary at the present moment in India; we, therefore, decided
to continue the old measure with certain important and basic
changes. The question then arose as to how far we should
depart from the provisions of the old measure and how we
could ensure that this Act would not be misused. Hon.
Members have pointed out several instances where, they felt,
that the law had been misused. I do not know of these
individual cases and it is likely that there may have been
some illegitimate use of the law.

While discussing this measure, one should always bear
in mind the particular circumstances which this measure is
intended to correct. I shall leave the question of the misuse of
the law open and am willing hypothetically to grant that it
has, in certain cases, gravely offended against individual
liberty. An hon. Member desired to discuss the provisions of
the Bill in relation to Hyderabad. In Telengana we had to
contend against conditions approximating to a civil war;
the authority of the State was challenged by certain disrup-
tive elements in society. I use the words ‘civil war’ advisedly
because arms were used by both the sides and those who had
used arms against the State have refused, to this day, to lay
down their arms, even if these are not being used any more
to undermine authority. The situation that confronts the
Government is, you will agree, extraordinary. If the situation
in Telengana has now improved considerably, it is the
Government, which I have the honour to represent, that is
to be given credit for it. This change has certainly not been
an automatic process. It was made possible only by a certain
policy pursued by my Government, year after year, under
circumstances of great stress. Even so, the fact remains that
some people, who are known to possess arms, can dictate the
terms on which they would lay down their arms. It is amazing
that some hon. Members who hold forth on democratic
principles and the freedom of speech in this House should
themselves possess arms. If they refuse to lay down their arms,
I am convinced that it is only because they hope to use them

THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION HH.T.

BBS

in the future. I am, however, aware that certain hon.
Members have recently changed their policy in this matter
and I am glad of this change and welcome it.

Hon. Members have examined the Bill mostly in rather
academic terms, in terms of the 19th century concept of
British democracy. We are in the middle of the 20th century
and I doubt if these concepts can apply in vacuo to any
given situation in India. My Government and I fully accept
and endorse democratic values and standards but one should
avoid thinking merely in terms of phrases and cliches, for-
getting in the process the principles which they represent.

I wonder how many among the Members of thr Opposition
or even among my colleagues accept the so-called basic
values of democracy. How many countries are there in
Europe, or in Asia for that matter, that venerate these values?

I do not deny that there are a few outstanding exceptions.
My own feeling is that the whole system of democracy is
coming up against several inherent difficulties. Perhaps,
my honourable friends opposite — some of them at any rate
— will term these ‘inner contradictions’. Perhaps, they really
are so.

The House knows as well as I do that any government
that brings forward a Bill of this kind can become unpopular.
Therefore, it takes my Government a great deal of courage
to introduce such a Bill. In fact, such legislation can be
undertaken only by a government which feels its respon-
sibility very keenly and does not wish to escape from it. If,
because of this measure, the people of India do not want us,
well, they can throw us out. It is all very well for certain
hon. Members to defy us to face another general election.
Surely, it was not very long ago that we contested the elec-
tions. The old Detention Act was very severe and we are now
seeking to amend it. During the elections, this particular
am endment was discussed and criticized a great deal by
Members of the Opposition. Being the party then in power,
we had implicitly to justify the measure. Yet, the results of
the elections are there for all to see.

Some hon. Members talk glibly about a police State. I
put it to them that they think over the matter calmly and

39—11 DPD/65

586

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1953

find out i! there is the remotest justification for using that
word. I invite them to compare the structure of our Govern-
ment with that of many others. I do not like criticizing any
other country nor does it become me to do so. I do not know
what their problems are. It may be that the way they have
chosen is right for their country; I shall not judge for them
just as we will not let another country judge for us or let them
impose their ideas upon us. But when I am criticized, I can,
however, look round and invite you to compare the Govern-
ments in Asia and Europe. Let us, for instance, compare our
Government with authoritarian regimes. Can the hon.
Members still maintain that this measure is unduly restrictive
in the modern context? May I repeat that I do not seek to
judge but merely to compare? Surely, a country which has
elected the hon. Members opposite to represent some of its
constituencies could not possibly be a police State.

Some hon. Members seemed to imply that this Bill was
directed against a certain group or party. That, I think, is a
wrong view to take of the Bill. We have had in India,
broadly speaking, four types of what I call anti-social
activities. There has been a great deal of activity with
communal purposes. I am only referring to the activities
accompanied by violence and not merely to expressions of
subversive views. Then there is the communist activity — and
when I say communist I am not referring only to the activities
of the Communist Party of India as such. It is a loose word
which I have used to describe the many groups and parties
that are distinct from one another and I do not know all
their names. They breeze in and out of the scenes of trouble.
They recognize no discipline, not even the discipline of their
own party. Thirdly, we have also witnessed various forms of
terrorist activity by jagirdars in our country. Broadly speaking
again, I shall refer to these as jagirdari activities.

The other day, an hon. Member opposite, referring to the
disturbances in Calcutta, claimed that it was 'the sweep of
history’ which had forced the masses into action. Broad
masses have been in action before and have brought about
big changes, for good or for bad. But to see in these incidents
in Calcutta or elsewhere the influence of the 'broad masses

THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION BILL

587

in action’ seems to me not only to be a complete misjudgment
of what is happening but also a complete misuse of words.
Let us consider the incidents in Calcutta to which my
honourable friends referred. Those who were responsible for
these incidents justified the use of violence by arguing that
certain assurances given by the Government of India and the
Government of West Bengal in regard to food supplies in the
State had not been fulfilled. The question of fulfilling the
promise did not arise until six months later. When these
incidents took place, the Governments of India and West
Bengal had done all that they had undertaken to do until
that day. Calcutta had plenty of wheat, not only wheat but
also rice. Certain people in Calcutta, however, announced,
their intention to hold demonstrations on the ground that
the Government of India had not fulfilled it » prograihme.
The leaders concerned were sent for by the Chief Minister
of West Bengal. He gave them the facts and the figures and
convinced them that there had been no breach of promise.
They left satisfied that there was no ground for complaint
against either of the Governments. Yet, amazingly enough,
they all returned in a procession the next day and there was
this trouble. In a city like Calcutta, as hon. Members can
well imagine, it is very easy for a crowd of two to five hundred
persons to create trouble if they are so inclined. It is to this
small, unruly crowd that the hon. Member referred as ‘the
broad masses in action’. Speaking of Calcutta, another
incident comes to my mind; this took place two or three
years ago. Calcutta was then faced with grave and unprece-
dented problems because of the large influx of displaced
persons from East Bengal. A state of semi-terror prevailed in
the city and bombs were thrown at policemen, shops and
tram-cars. It was at about this time that I went to Calcutta
and addressed these ‘broad masses’. A million of them came
to my meeting and at that meeting a bomb was thrown,
resulting in the killing of a police inspector and two or three
others; the man who threw the bomb was himself wounded.
Anticipating some disturbance of this kind, I had requested
them at the outset that, even in the event of a murder in
their midst, they should remain calm and disciplined. And

588

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949-1953

they did behave with discipline. As I was still speaking, the
‘broad masses’ wanted to deal with the bomb-thrower and
restore order. They were clearly not willing to be imposed
upon by the terrorists and some of them said so. Eventually,
order was restored. The ‘broad masses’ went into action
against the trouble-makers. This seems to me to be more
plausible instance of the ‘broad masses in action’.

Life in the big cities like Calcutta, Delhi or Bombay
would become impossible, if small crowds of a few hundred
people were to dislocate the normal life of millions in this
manner. Here, in Delhi, disturbances broke out the other day
as a protest against a proposed marriage, which was entirely a
private affair; whether it was right or wrong was nobody’s
concern. Yet, this was the signal for anti-social elements in
the city to start breaking the windows of the court-house,
hitting people in Chandni Chowk and generally creating
trouble. If the Delhi police had not acted as they did, the
trouble would have spread to other parts 'of the city. I shall
never forget the gruesome incidents, in Delhi and all over the
Punjab between August and October in 1947. People who are
normally law-abiding were incited to participate in acts of
barbarity. If, in the name of democracy, you want people to
be incited, to do wrong and the structure of a democratic
State we have built up undermined, you are welcome to it.
Only it is not my conception of democracy.

We have to bear in mind the conditions in India, as they
are today, which this Bill seeks to correct. It is admittedly our
duty to protect the liberty of the individual, to see that it is
not gravely offended against. I reaffirm my desire to secure-the
necessary safeguards. Remember that we have, at the same
time, to bear in mind the interests of the community and the
country as well. Unless the State is perfect and every indi-
vidual is perfect, there is always some conflict between the
freedom of the individual and the security of the State. In
extreme cases, the State in some countries is put above every-
thing else, above the freedom of the individuals of which it
is composed and the State thus becomes deified. This has
been done in some great countries but it is not for me to
criticize them. For my part I cherish the freedom of the

THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION BILL

individual and I do not want that freedom to be restricted
in the name of the State but if the safety of the State is at
stake the freedom of certain individuals has to be curbed.
After all, in times of war, every democratic country has to
limit the freedom of the individual because the State is in
danger. I do not mean to say that we in India are now
living through times of war. In fact, many lion.' Members of
the Opposition have remarked on the relatively stable con-
ditions, political and economic, that now obtain in this
country. Probably, if they had been speaking in another
context, they might not have so readily granted the fact
that we have progressed. In fact, before now, ’hey blamed
us for lack of progress. In this particular case, it suits them
to hand us a few bouquets for maintaining stability and
security in the country.

To return to the subject, the essential question remains
as to where the line should be drawn between the interests of
the State and those of the individual: this will admittedly
vary with the circumstances. In times of war the demarcation
should be in favour of the State and in peace it should be to
the advantage of the individual without, of course,
endangering the interests of the State, for the State can at
no time be ignored. Hon. Members opposite have referred
to the practice in the U.K. in this matter, perhaps rightly
so, because truly enough we have fashioned our Parliament
after the British Parliament; even our laws are largely similar.
I must, however, point out that there is a vital difference
between our country and that compact little island with
centuries-old traditions of disciplined behaviour by the
citizens and above all the Rule of Law. I admire her people
for it; but only a few years have elapsed since our country
emerged from servitude. I believe that we have gone forward
in spite of the various obstacles that have impeded our
progress. More than anything else, we have held together as a
people and all the efforts of this House and our Government
should continue to be directed towards the maintenance and
promotion of social cohesion. There are fissiparous forces at
work in our country, such as the demand for linguistic
provinces, for instance, that make for disunity and tend to

590

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU'S SPEECHES 1949 1955

pull apart our integrated structure. We have to guard against
such forces, for they can overwhelm a country. In the context
of this danger, a measure like this, we feel, is essential.

Some hon. Members pointed out that the Bill had not
undergone many changes as it passed through the Select
Committee. While it is true that not very many changes were
made, important changes were effected. This is so, because
before the Bill was referred to the Select Committee many
informal Committees had discussed it in all its aspects.
Having passed through so many sieves, it was the product of
our concentrated effort. The scope for changes by the Select
Committee was thus limited.

In this debate, a great deal of stress has been laid on the
function of lawyers and the availability of legal advice. My
reputation in that large and very estimable community of
lawyers in India is not the best possible because, estimable as
they are, I am afraid I do not admire their profession. It is
not their fault, of course. The defect really lies with the
judicial structure that we have inherited from the British
which entails inordinate delay and expense. However
efficacious this system may be, it really proves to be unjust
in the end because of the excessive delay and expense it
involves.

If the House would like to have a full-fledged trial in each
case, let it have one by all means Here you have three
eminent people, Judges of the High Court and the like. The
House knows very well that the Judges of the High Court and
of the Supreme Court are independent of executive authority.
In fact, they have often been outspokenly critical of executive
authority. These judges cannot be partial to the executive. If
the matter is left in their hands and they have the opportunity
to meet the accused, talk to him and elicit the necessary infor-
mation from him, they are likely to take a lenient view of his
offence. If, on the other hand, you convert it into a semi-
trial, the judge does not feel the same sympathy or
responsibility for the accused because the latter has a counsel
to represent him. If you have lawyers on the one side, you
have to have lawyers on the other. Then, the whole purpose
of this measure is defeated. Of course, we must give the

THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION BILL

591

detenu all the facilities necessary for him to defend himself.

The House will remember that even during the last
general election men were killed in Rajasthan and Saurashtra
by the jagirdari elements there, so that these people might
not vote for the Congress. It was openly proclaimed in posters
— they did not believe in hints — that any one who voted for
' the Congress would be killed. If an enquiry on the Saurashtra
affairs was conducted in an open court where the jagirdars
and princes were present, can you imagine what the fate of
that unhappy wretch who gave evidence against the jagirdar
or the prince would be? If you insist on bringing in witnesses
and eliciting their evidence under conditions like these, such
evidence may not be forthcoming. Or alternatively, you will
have to undertake elaborate measures to project individual
witnesses and, in effect, you will have to de ain practically
every witness. I feel this would be impracticable. I would,
therefore, beg the House to forget the past, for a moment.
Consider the Bill as it stands with its various safeguards.

Much has been said against the district magistrate and the
police. I am not here as an apologist for them. But I do
submit to this House that it is not right and not fair to run
down our Services en bloc like this. There are good, bad and
indifferent people everywhere. But this method of running
down people, who have to shoulder heavy responsibilities and
have often to face crises, is not fair because they never get a
chance to defend themselves in public. They make mistakes;
they, nevertheless, try to function according to their judgment
and discretion.

Something has been said about the State Governments,
too. Our State Governments have to shoulder direct and
immediate responsibilities while the Government of India,
sitting in New Delhi, does not have to do so. They deal with
the problems of their people daily as they arise. While I am
about it, I should like to pay a tribute to our State Govern-
ments for the way they have discharged their responsibilities
during these five years. I say this especially because I under-
stand an hon. Member spoke harsh words about the
Government of Saurashtra. In fact, this is one of the most
efficient and able Governments in India. In the particular

592

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S SPEECHES 1949-1955

case referred to by the hon. Member, the Saurashtra Govern-
ment was very reluctant to take action and I had repeatedly
to write to the Chief Minister and press him to act before the
situation deteriorated further. And the hon. Member tells
me that the Chief Minister goes about arresting people and
behaving like a Chengiz Khan or a Tamerlane. I do not
know how many hon. Members know the Chief Minister of
Saurashtra. I know him to be one of the humblest and ablest
of men in our country.

It is the State Governments and our Services who have
actually to deal with difficult situations like these. If they
make mistakes, let us make a law to prevent such mistakes.
A district magistrate, almost in all cases except in a grave
emergency, has to consult the Home Minister concerned.
If he does not refer the matter to the Home Minister because
he has to act quickly, you can always provide in the law that
the Home Minister be consulted within a period, say, of
twelve days. The responsibility then becomes that of the
State Government. You can also provide for a reference of
the case to be made to the Advisory Council which can be
assisted by eminent judges or persons with some experience
of the judiciary. You can also provide for the Government
of India to be informed of the action taken. You may vary the
provisions, add to them and change them if you want to. But
I submit that there are enough safeguards 10 prevent injustice
being done. After all, I cannot guarantee that injustice will
never be done. In any case, the hon. Members of this House
can always draw the attention of the wide world to the
injustice, as they have done in the past. I shall certainly
welcome it if they do. The Members of the State Legislatures
can do likewise.

If you look at the Bill carefully, it is exceedingly unlikely
that any miscarriage of justice can occur. Even if any injustice
were done, it could not endure for long. I, therefore, submit
that, subject to such minor amendments and variations as in
the judgment and wisdom of the House are to be accepted,
the main approach of this Bill is not only right but is wholly
democratic

INDEX

A

Aarey Milk Scheme, 559
.'Abdullah, Sheikh, 102, 103. Ill, 112,
191

Accession, 121, 122, 294
Acheson, Mr, 249
Acquisition of Properties , 472
Afghanistan, 46, 225
Africa. 199, 217, 227, 276, 283, 299,
318, 345

Agreement of April 8, 165, 170-172
Agriculture, 84, 94, 199, 331
Agricultural Development Commit-
tee, 61

Agricultural Loans Agreement, 58
Ahmcdabad, 279
Ajmer, 58
Akbar, 433

All India Congress Committee, 279
All India Radio, 92, 277, 532, 547
All India Newspaper Editors Confe-
rence, 462
Allahabad, 504
Allahabad High Court, 509
Alwaye, 32

Ambedkar, Dr, 500, 502
America, 32, 46, 48, 63, 69, 71, 196,

197, 203, 211, 267, 271, 305, 314,

324, 347, 386, 396, 397, 415. 416,

420, 421, 444, 445
American Capitalism, 48
American Constitution, 113
American Life, 416
Americans, 203, 212, 213, 383, 496

Andhra, 35-36, 37, 41
Anglo-American Bloc, 310, 311, 314,
315, 323, 344
Arabia, 358, 541
Architecture, Indian, 432
Armaments, 118
Art, Indian, 387
Art Galleries, 388
Aryans, 73

Asia, 5. 42, 49, 198, 199, 209, 214
to 217, 223, 224, 226, 227, 238 to
240, 242, 251, 269, 275, 276, 280,

282, 283, 299, 318, 325, 345, 356,

373, 383, 384, 396, 397, 416, 417,

418, 420, 421, 424, 425, 444, 445,

446, 478, 482, 495, 544

Asoka, 433
Asoka Chakra, 28

Assam, 9, 31, 64, 150, 184, 185, 233,
448, 539

Atom Bomb, 218, 221, 254, 309, 371,
412

Atomic Energy Commission, 366, 367
Attlee, Mr, 260, 264
Ayurvedic System of Medicine, 542,
543

Ayyangar, Mr Gopaiasvami, 113,
172, 176

B

Backward Classes, 48
Backward Classes League, 5G
Bagcrhat, 138
Baldwin, Mr Stanley, 455
Bangalore. 36G, 548
Banking, 88
Basic Education, 68
Bengal, 37, 38, 58, 136, 142, 143,
146, 150, 151, 152, 159, 165, 166,
168, 169, 184, 185, 232, 334, 408,
450

Bengal Famine, 330
Bhabha, Dr, 367
Bharat Mata, 63
Bliatnagar, Dr, 367
Bihar, 38, 539

Bihar High Court, 504, 508
Bismarck, 282, 283

Board of Scientific and Industrial Re-
search, 366

Bombay, 40, 233, 330, 539, 546,

559, 588

Boundary Commission, 35
British, 20, 21, 31, 34, 107, 125, 128,
204, 207, 215, 222, 256, 307, 312,
314-316, 352, 396, 413. 441, 442,
490, 501, 523, 579, 589
Buddha, 93, 390

Burma, 37, 46, 224, 269, 276, 282,
396

C

Cairo, 254

Calcutta, 135 to 138, 140, 141, 142,
167, 234, 586, 588

594

INDEX

C — {Contd.)

Cambridge, 202

Canada, 214, 215, 217, 219, 436
Canal Waters, Indo-Pakistan, 177,
180, 192, 231, 452
Capital, 476, 477
Capitalism, 46, 47. 48
Capitalism, American, 48
Central Asia, 106, 416
Central Europe, 345
Central India. 579

Central Museum of Asian Antiqui-
ties, 388

Central Partition Committee. 180
Centralization, 72, 420
Ceylon, 228, 276, 305. 313, 396, 421,
426, 428. 429
Charkha, 97
Clienab, 192
Children, 376, 435

China, 24, 25, 27. 39. 226, 240, 249,

250, 251, 253, 255, 257, 258, 260,

264, 266, 271, 272, 276. 277, 280,

281, 284, 324, 326, 327, 328, 341,

346, 347, 384, 503

Chinese Suzerainty over Tibet, 271.
272

Chittagong, 141

Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, 28.
304

Cinema, 578

Citizenship of Displaced Persons, 10
Civil Defence, 193, 195
Civil Disobedience Movement, 174
Civil War, 24. 25

Civilization, 274, 275, 357, 371, 380,
381, 385, 420, 424
Cold War, 23. 310
Colombo Conference, 130
Colonialism. 216, 243, 244, 276, 308,
318

Commonwealth, 129. 130, 267, 317
Communal Spirit, 193
Communal unity, 191
Communalism, 146, 188, 350, 351,
487

Communications. Development in,
433

Communism, 23. 47. 239, 243, 265,
266

Communist Party, 18, 19, 21, 22
Community Projects, 50-56, 350
Congress, Indian National, 175, 442,
478

Cooch-Bihar, 233

Culture, 356-362
Czechoslovakia, 370

D

Dacca, 140 to 144
Dandi, 576
Darjeeling, 38, 582
Dawn, 235

Declaration of Independence, Ame-
rican. 197
Defence, 261, 314

Defence Services, 301, 311, 312, 532
Delhi, 27, 166, 167, 181, 229, 257,

333, 337, 386, 467, 525, 548, 588
Delhi Agreement, 178, 180
Democracy, 3, 12, 14, 15, 45, 49,
81, 85, 90, 175, 198, 209, 219,

267, 270, 278, 348, 349, 384, 395,

416, 464, 510, 583
Democratic Socialism, 47
Deo, Sri Sankarrao, 166
Deutsches Museum, 377
Devanagari Script, 582
Dever’s Plan, 303
Digwadih, 362
Diplomacy, 133

Directive Principles of State Policy,
486, 488, 508, 514, 515, 522

Displaced Persons, 9, 10, 33, 176
Divide and Rule, Policy of, 34
Dixon, Sir Owen, 190
Dnepropetrovsk Dam, 26
Dum Dum, 339. 340
Durgabai, Srimati, 528
Dutch, 308

E

East, 240. 360, 396, 597
East Africa, 282

East Bengal, 30, 33, 135, 136, 138,
139, 141-144, 146-150, 158, 161, 165,
167 to 170, 173, 174, 176, 185, 187,
229, 230, 232, 448, 450
East Pakistan, 156, 157, 167, 169
Economic democracy, 80, 85
Economic development, 76, 239
Economic progress, 24, 199, 347
Economics, 361
Economists, 86

Economv, Indian, 44, 50, 75, 82, 93,
218, 554

Education, 25, 68, 69, 382, 464
Egypt, 227, 305, 324
Election Commission, 9, 13

INDEX

595

E ( Contd .)

Election Manifesto of Congress,
1945-1946, 34

Elections, General, 8, 9, 10, 12-16,
29, 209, 297

Employment, 46, 63, 64, 84, 95, 96
England, 46, 69, 203, 207, 267, 273,

. 275, 308, 324, 331, 405, 436, 455,

540

English language, 315
Europe, 9, 19, 4b, 101, 198, 212,
215, 216, 222, 276, 277, 278, 281,

299, 356, 370, 375, 383, 384, 386,

396, 397, 416. 420, 421, 444, 445,

541, 561, 586

European Civilization, 186
European History, 83, 488
European influence in Asia, 240
European Powers, 209, 283
European Problems, 239
Evacuee Laws, 451
Evacuee Property, 176, 192, 231, 232,
451

Evacuees, 451

Exchange of Population, Indo-Pakis-
tan, 144, 159, 174, 175, 186, 233
Exchange of Prisoners, Korean, 327.
328

External Publicity, 284, 285
F

F.A.O., 71
Famine, Bengal, 408
Far East, 101, 238, 249, 253, 254,
277, 278, 280, 281, 286, 321, 327,
345, 410, 416, 432
Fascism, 20

Federation of Indian Chambers of
Commerce and Industry, 562
First World War, 423
Five Year Plan, 26, 63, 81, 89, 93,
94, 96, 329, 330, 332, 349, 352
Five Year Plan, Second, 88, 89
Food, 6. 26, 49, 58, 59, 76, 77, 79,
262, 263, 278, 350, 549, 550
Food Policy, 1952, 74-80
Food Production, 60, 61, 62, 95
Food Rationing, 550 *

Food Situation, 49, 58, 59, 157
Foreign Affairs, 32, 121, 220, 246,
247, 258, 282, 298, 317
Foreign Aid, 91

Foreign Policy, 3, 5, 16, 17, 128,
132, 181, 200, 201, 220, 337, 394,
418, 441, 447, 549

Foreign Possessions in India, 248, 286

Formosa, 254

France, 396

Free Enterprise, 76

Freedom, 3-6, 84, 182, 197, 199, 200,
207, 208, 217, 225, 276, 399, 454,
573, See also Independence
Freedom, India’s fight for, 3, 219,
226, 323, 324, 578
French Indo-China, 396
French Possessions in India, 30S
Frontier Areas, 225
Frontier Province, 225, 229
Fundamental Rights, 480, 486, 487,
488, 502, 521

G

Gandhiji, 1, 68, 93, 134, 200. 204,

205, 215. 229, 275, 279, 291, 344,

369, 394, 398, 39f 400, 401, 417,

418, 430. 437. 535, 549, 572, 574,

575

Ganga, 73
Geneva, 370

Geneva Convention, 327
German Constitution, 522
Germany. 9, 76, 305, 345
Goa, 305

Gokhale. Mr, 524

Government of India Act of 1935,
501

Graham, Dr Frank, 302, 303
Greece, 383, 424, 541
Gujerat, 58

Gupta, Deshbandhu, 507
Gurkha Province. 38

H

Hague, 231
Hague Court, 231
Hanumanthaiya, Mr, 148
Harijans, 64
Harun A1 Rashid, 542
Heavy Industry, 84
Himachal Pradesh, 14
Himalayas. 66, 73. 92, 257, 358
Hindi, 459
Hindu, 428
Hindu , the, 236
Hindu Mahasabha, 131
Hindus in East Bengal, 9, 138 to
141, 153, 155, 158, 159, 161, 170,
233, 450

Hindus of Jammu, 193

596

INDEX

H— (Gon/i.)

Hindus of Kashmir, 103, 104
Hindustan Aircraft Factory, 304
Hitler, 315
Holland, 396
Homoeopaths, 545
Howrah, 167

Hyderabad, 21, 26. 41. 335, 584
H\drogen Bomb, 149, 221, 222, 309

I

Idealism, 265

Imperialism, 105, 132, 216, 442
Imperialists, 105, 209
Independence, 20, 26. 221, 222, 263,
304, 312, 323, 442, 443, 454, 580;
See also Freedom
Independents, 18
India House, 288
Indian Air Force, 339
Indian Council for Cultural Rela-
tions, 356

Indian Independence Act, 294
Indian National Commission of
UNESCO, 368

Indian National Congress, see Con-
gress.

Indigenous Systems ot Medicine Com*
mittee. Reports of. 541
Indo-China, 226

Indonesia, 243, 269. 276. 324. 351.
396

Indo-Pakistan Relations. 152. 178.

184, 187, 289
Indus, 192

Industrial Development, 262, 350
Industrial Revolution, 83, 86, 382,
385

Industrialization. 84. 89, 218, 383,
417

Industries, 97, 98, 410
Industry, 84, 89, 199, 331, 363
Industry, Chemical, 44
Institute of Pacific Relations, 238
International Affairs, 127, 219, 247,
274, 279, 340, 422, 444
International Buddhist Cultural Con-
ference, 390

International Court of Justice. 231
International Crisis, 274
Internationalism, 418

j

Jagirdars, 586
Jagirs, 335
Jammu, 301, 333

Jammu and Kashmir, 100, 102, 180,
301, 333. 334, 352, 353
Jammu Parishad, 335, 336, 353
Jan Sangli, 18. 336
Janata, 63

Japan, 9, 324, 436, 437. 561
Jehad, 192, 292. 293
Jlielum, 192
Journalism, 462
Journalists, 284. 456. 466, 468
Junagadh, 179

K

Kalimpong, 582
Karachi, 143, 173, 180
Karnataka, 35, 37, 42, 330, 331
Kashmir, 8, 21, 26, 32, 100 to 123,
132, 146, 150, 179, 180, 184, 185,
187, 188, 189, 193, 231. 289, 291
to 295, 300, 301, 302, 305, 333 to
336, 352, 353
Kashmiris, 32, 354
Kathiawar, 538
Kerala, 37, 42
Kliadi, 98

Khadi and Village Industries Board,
96

Khan, Mr, Liaquat Ali, 157, 168, 177
to 180

Khulna, 138, 139, 142
Kidwai, Shri Rah Ahmed, 57
King, Mr Mackenzie, 215
K. M. P. Party, 18
Korea, 212, 251, 252, 253, 260, 280,
281', 287, 301, 305, 319, 326, 327.
329, 343, 344, 548
Korea, North, 249, 250, 253
Korea, South, 249, 319
Kripalani, A diary a, 269, 554, 558
Kripalani, Srimati Sucheta, 165
Krishi Pandit, 61
Kultur, German, 357
Kunzru, Pandit, 272, 337, 504, 510

L

Lake Success, 237, 268, 280, 291, 372
Land, Indian System of, 199, 208,
404

Land Legislation, 477
Landless Labour, 347
Language, 39, 40, 581, 582

Jagirdari, 94, 586

INDEX

597

1< — (Citwifcf.)

Lanka Sundaram, Dr, 33, 41, 79,
313, 316

Lauricr, Sir Wilfred, 215
Law, 474, 477, 517
Lawyers, 496, 499, 590
League of Nations, 317, 340, 370,
522

'Lenin, 27, 581
Liberty, 198

Linguistic Provinces (States), 30,
33-43

Local Self-Government, 209
Lok Sabha, see Parliament
London, 214, 268, 277, 288, 314, 370,
377, 548

M

MacDonald, Sir John, 215
MacNaughton formula, 230
Madras, 35, 36, 41, 58, 60, 61, 334,
509, 514, 538
Maha Gujerat, 41
Maharashtra, 37, 41
Maharashtrians, 35
Mahatma Gandhi, see Gandhi ji
Maitra, Mr Lakshmi Kanta, 146,
147

Malabar, 59
Malaya, 282
Malik, Dr, 157
Manipur, 17. 31
Marx, 47
Marxism, 47

Masani, Mr M. R. 259, 260
Masaudi, Maulana, 189
Mediator in the Kashmir dispute,
296, 302

Medicine, the Modern System of
536-545

Mehta, Dr Jivraj, 542
Middle East, 227, 299, 384
Ministry of Natural Resources and
Scientific Research, *366, 367
Minorities, 153, 159. 160, 172, 174,
450, 452

Minorities, in Pakistan, 147, 149,
155, 450
Mongolia, 39

Mookerjee, Dr Svama Prasad, 16,
29, 32, S3, 37, 38, 101, 110, 111,
166, 169, 171 to 174, 183, 185, 288,
289, 300, 313, 339, 350
Moscow, 268

Mukerjee, Prof. Hirendra Nath, 25,
339

Multan, 152

Multipurpose Schemes, 410
Munich, 377

Murshidabad, 135. 139, 140
Museums, 375, 378
Muslim League, 188, 351
Muslims, 9, 139, 140, 153, 194 , 233,
234, 351, 354, 450
Mysore, 58, 436

N

Nagas, 17

Narendra Dev, Acharya, 329, 332,

353, 354

National Anthem, 28
National Art Treasure 1 und, 386
National Conference, 189, 191, 193
National Congress, see Congicss
National Emblem, 21
National Flag 14. 28
National Laboratories, 362, 363, 366,
433, 559

National Movement, 324, 352, 413
Nationalism. 360, 361, 418
Nationalism, in Asia, 216, 226, 242,
243. 417

Nationalism, in India, 126
Nationalization, 45, 509
Nazi Germany, 76, 315
Negroes, 227

Nepal, 224, 225, 254 to 258, 270, 278,
502

Nepal, King of, 257, 258
New Delhi, 67, 388, 389
Newspaper, the Modern, 235, 236,
452, 453, 454, 462-471; See also
Press

New York, 213. 237, 391
Non-alignment, 326
Non-co-operation, 174
Non-interference, 220, 226
Non-violence, 241
North Africa, 299
North East Frontier, 509
North Korea, see Korea, North
No-war Declaration with Pakistan,
177, 184, 232, 236

O

Old Delhi, 388

osition in Parliament, 17, 18, 20,

, 26
Orissa, 539

598

INDEX

P

Pakistan, 9, 10, 21, 26, 29, 30, 32,
64, 77, 127, 130 to 134, 142, 144
to 148, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156,
159, 166, 171 to 173, 176 to 181,
183 to 187, 189, 190 to 194, 225,
228, 231 to 233, 235, 236, 247,
276, 289, 290, 291, 295, 302, 336,

337, 351, 396, 404, 441, 444, 445-

448

Pakistan. Government of, 77, 135,
152, 158, 177, 231, 232, 446

Panmunjon, 328
Paris, 277, 370. 377
Parliament, 12, 15, 17, 81, 82, 90,
91. 319. 337. 338, 465, 474, 477,
484. 485, 490, 492, 494, 498, 502,

505, 506, 528, 553
Parliament, in England, 331, 483
Partition, 31. 39, 57, 133, 151, 208,

236, 289, 290, 294

Patel, Sardar Vallabhbhai, 38, 334,
546, 547

Peace, 116, 200, 218, 219, 246, 247,

259, 273, 274, 275, 277, 278, 281,

282, 306, 307. 326, 394, 396, 416,

418, 423, 460, 461, 548
Pearson, Mr, 214, 254
Peasant, Indian, 205, 399, 404
Peking, 227. 250, 268
Penal Code, Indian. 518
People’s Democratic Front of Hydera-
bad, 18
PEPSU, 173
Phoenix, 126
Plan, see Five Year Plan
Planning, 52, 53, 55, 80, 81, 87
Planning Commission, 74, 80 to 83,
88. 497, 539, 555, 556, 567, 568
Plebiscite in Andhra, 35, 41, 42
Plebiscite in Kashmir, 119, 189, 293,
302

Politicians, 380, 466
Politics, 274, 380
Polling, 12, 13, 14
Portugal, 396

Portuguese Possessions in India, 303
Potsdam, 254

Praja Parishad, 332, 350, 352, 354
President of India, 8, 16, 17, 112,
126, 298, 320, 474, 485, 528, 546,
553

Press, 442, 443, 450, 464, 490, 491
Press, Freedom of, 456, 463, 464, 507,
519, 525. 526

Press in India, 117, 137, 178, 235,
455. 507

Press in Pakistan, 137, 142, 235

Press Laws Enquiry Committee, 507,
519

Preventive Detention Bill, 583-592
Princely States, 108; See also States,
Indian

Private Enterprise, 45, 48, 509, 510
Provincialism, 39, 351, 580
Public Health, 538
Punjab, 58, 152, 166, 337, 450, 525,
588

Punjab Partition Committee, 180

R

Racial Discrimination, 217
Racialism, 248, 396, 417
Rajagopalachari, Mr, 546
Rajasthan, 450, 591
Rajpramukhs, 109
Raman, Dr, 363
Ranga, Prof., 271

Rau, Shri B. N., 230, 268, 303

Red Cross, International, 144
Red Fort, 1

Refugees from Pakistan, 2, 9, 17,
139, 141, 142, 143, 145, 155, 166,
174, 404, 405, 409

Rehabilitation of Refugees, 17, 33,
168, 169, 176

Republic of India, 7, 16, 108. 124,
197, 207, 278

Republic, Soviet, 63, 581
Republic of Spain, 522
Republic of United States, 198, 416
Revolution, 20, 62, 63, 87, 198, 397
River Valley Schemes, 27, 95, 209,
410

Roman script, 582
Rothe, 383, 541
Roosevelt, Mrs., 213
Roosevelt, President, 203
Russia, 24, 27, 42, 266, 503; See
also Soviet Union and U.S.S.R.
Russian Revolution, 25, 63, 347
Russians, 47

S

Sadar-e-Riyasat, 335
Saeed, Maulana, 191
Saha, Professor, 42
Salt March, 576
Samyukta Maharashtra, 41
San Francisco, 416
Sanchi, 390

INDEX

599

B— (Could.)

Sanskrit, 432
Santhals, 139

Sardar Patel, see Patel, Sardar Valla*
bhbhai

Satyagraha, 335
Saurashtra, 58, 591
Scheduled Castes, 11, 56, 485, 509
Scheduled Castes Federation, 18
Scheduled Tribes, 11, 56, 485, 509;

See also Tribal Folk
Science, 200, 217, 241, 359, 362 to
366, 371, 373, 374, 381, 412, 423
Science Congress, Indian. 366, 367,
548

Scientific Research, 366*367
Scientists, 363-366
Second World War, 423
Secularism, 175

Security Council, 8, 104, 106, 120,
190, 191, 230. 249, 253, 291 to
295, 300, 302, 303, 318
Seoul, 252

Shankar's Weekly, 435, 438
Shaw, Bernard, 429
Sikh Province, 42
Sikhs. 103, 194, 351. 354
Sind, 147, 229, 450, 451
Sindri, 28, 95
Social Reform, 482
Socialist Party, 18
Socialist Policy, 46
Soekarno, Dr, 224

South Africa, 130, 204, 228, 313,
345

South America, 227
South East Asia, 210, 216, 223, 269.
410, 416, 432

South Korea, see Korea, South
Soviet Union, 42, 43, 81, 83, 258,
311, 315, 321, 329, 847; See also
Russia and U.S.S.R.

St. Laurent, Mr, 214
Stalin, Marshal, 249
State Governments, 60, 78, 113, 330,
480, 530

States. Indian, 13, 30, 39, 40, 59,
77, 107, 108, 109, 121, 501, 579.
Statesmanship, 183, 184
Steel, 410
Students, 70

Supreme Court, 112, 113, 478, 504,
517

Swaraj, 62

Syngman Rhee, President, 320

T

Tagore, 369, 431
Technology, 423
Telengana, 494, 584
Tendulkar, D. G., 572
Tennessee Valley Authority, 410
Thakkar Bapa, 278
Thimmayya, General. 303
Thirty-eight Parallel, 268, 280
Thoreau, 403

Tibet, 254, 255, 257, 271, 272
Tokyo, 436

Travancorc-Cochin, 92
Tribal Areas, Christian Missionaries
in, 579

Tribal Folk, 278, 576 ‘^83; See also
Scheduled Tribes
Tripura, 150

Truman, President, 1.52, 253, 260,
264

Tunisia, 305, 318

Two-nation Iheory, 191, 194, 228
Tyagi, Shii Maliavir, 125

U

U K Sec United Kingdom
U.N. Commission, see United Nations
Commission

Unani System of Medicine, 542, 543
Unemployment, 64, 96
UNESCO, 368, 369, 371, 372, 374
United Kingdom, 69, 107, 153, 250,
251, 258, 264, 266, 285, 292, 315,
327, 331, 405, 483, 490, 494, 552,
568

United Nations, Charter of, 317
United Nations Commission, 105, 120,
121, 190, 293

United Nations Organization, 33, 71,
100, 115, 116, 118, 120, 121, 173,

180, 186. 190, 210, 220, 237, 238,

248 to 253, 268, 272, 280, 281, 286,
287, 291, 294, 299, 300, 301, 303,

317 to 320, 326, 327, 328, 340, 341,
355, 372

United Provinces, 208, 477; See also
Uttar Pradesh

United States of America, 8, 45, 46,
48, 83, 153, 196, 197, 198, 201, 203,
204, 210, 211, 213, 222, 223, 249,

251, 252, 253. 258, 264, 266, 268,

284, 285, 316, 321, 327, 331, 342,

346, 415, 416, 417, 436, 489, 493,

510

Universities, 424, 426
University of California, 420

600

INDEX

U —(Contd.)

University of Ceylon, 421
University, Columbia, S91, 598
University of Saugor, 431
UNO, see United Nations Organisa-
tion

U.S.A., see United States of America
U.S.S.R., 26, 249, 266; See also

Russia and Soviet Union
Uttar Pradesh, 14, 40, 41, 58, 61,
233, 450

Uttarkhand, 38, 42
V

Victoria Park, 140
Village Industries, 84, 97
Violence, 3, 4, 5, 21. 24, 85, 133, 138,
419

Vishala Andhra, 41
W

War, 21, 23, 24, 118,^19, 120, 160,
183, 184. 217, 218, 259, 274, 279,

280, 321, 345, 346, 363, 371. 892,
396, 397, 413, 418, 465
Washington, 196, 201, 213, 268
Weimar Republic, 522
Welfare State, 97, 332, 340

West

Bengal, 9,

10, 37, 38

, 61,

132,

135,

136, 138,

139,

140,

142.

143,

150,

155, 156,

161,

167,

174,

176,

229,

230, 232, 450

West,

Countries

of,

198,

217,

275,

281,

383, 396

West

Pakistan, 9,

, 138,

, 166,

176,

351,

451,

525

West Punjab, 229, 450

Western Asia, 209, 223, 299, 410,

416

Women, 125, 214
Women of India, 213
Wordsworth, 377

World Peace. 4, 200, 217, 218, 274,

417

World War, dangers of, 5, 267, 279
Z

Zamindar, 495
Zamindari, 94
Zamindaries, 477

MGIPCBE— SI— 1 1 DPD/65 — 5-6-67 — 3,000.